Frauline Cagen

[Nbadan]

Yet another Bush crony opens mouth and inserts foot...


http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/09_04/Counselor2909MOS_468x365.jpg
Eww........Is that an Iron Cross?


Britsh MPs visiting the Pentagon to discuss America's stance on Iran and Iraq were shocked to be told by one of President Bush's senior women officials: "I hate all Iranians."

And she also accused Britain of "dismantling" the Anglo-US-led coalition in Iraq by pulling troops out of Basra too soon.

The all-party group of MPs say Debra Cagan, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Coalition Affairs to Defence Secretary Robert Gates, made the comments this month.

The six MPs were taken aback by the hardline approach of the Pentagon and in particular Ms Cagan, one of Mr Bush's foreign policy advisers.

She made it clear that although the US had no plans to attack Iran, it did not rule out doing so if the Iranians ignored warnings not to develop a nuclear bomb.

It was her tone when they met her on September 11 that shocked them most.

The MPs say that at one point she said: "In any case, I hate all Iranians."

Although it was an aside, it was not out of keeping with her general demeanour.

"She seemed more keen on saying she didn't like Iranians than that the US had no plans to attack Iran," said one MP. "She did say there were no plans for an attack but the tone did not fit the words."

Another MP said: "I formed the impression that some in America are looking for an excuse to attack Iran. It was very alarming."

Tory Stuart Graham, who was on the ten-day trip, would not discuss Ms Cagan but said: "It was very sobering to hear from the horse's mouth how the US sees the situation."

Ms Cagan, whose job involves keeping the coalition in Iraq together, also criticised Britain for pulling out troops.

"She said if we leave the south of Iraq, the Iranians will take it over," said one MP.

Another said: "She is very forceful and some of my colleagues were intimidated by her muscular style."

The MPs also saw Henry Worcester, Deputy Director of the Office of Iranian Affairs, who said he favoured talks with Iran.

The Pentagon denied Ms Cagan said she "hated" Iranians.

"She doesn't speak that way," said an official.

But when The Mail on Sunday spoke to four of the six MPs, three confirmed privately that she made the remark and one declined to comment. The other two could not be contacted.

Link (http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=484762&in_page_id=1770)

[Mister Sinister]

That's America for you. The place where we accept and tolerate people of all races, nationalities, and religions. God, I love this country.

[boutons_]

The Ugly American

Like Katherine Harris, this one looks like a tranny.

[exstatic]

I think Xenu has arrived. Either that, or Hollywood is actively recruiting the Bush administration for characters for the next installment of Ghost Busters.

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/09_04/Counselor2909MOS_468x365.jpg

[Wild Cobra]

That's America for you. The place where we accept and tolerate people of all races, nationalities, and religions. God, I love this country.
Then why are us conservatives not tolerated?

[ChumpDumper]

Because you aren't really conservatives.

[boutons_]

http://redtory.blogspot.com/2007/10/vile-bodies-debra-l-cagan.html

[George Gervin's Afro]

Yet another Bush crony opens mouth and inserts foot...


http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/09_04/Counselor2909MOS_468x365.jpg
Eww........Is that an Iron Cross?



Link (http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=484762&in_page_id=1770)



:oops

[boutons_]

Quite apart from her unfortunate face, ugly is as ugly says, and saying "I hate all Iranians" is simply astonishing.

The shrubbies really know how to attract classy, serious, competent people.

[FromWayDowntown]

Then why are us conservatives not tolerated?

Oh! The poor put-upon conservatives in America!

I suspect that conservatives are tolerated as well by liberals as liberals are tolerated by conservatives.

It's interesting to me that so many of the faces of conservatism today routinely contend that liberals want to destroy America and that those who lean to the left politically are necessarily aligned with our current mortal enemies. I guess that's toleration.

Liberals, meanwhile question divisive policies and are, IMO, less shrill in demonizing on a personal level, but are somehow deemed to be wholly intolerant.

[Oh, Gee!!]

holy rocky horror picture show!!!! would you look at the face? bless her heart.

[CubanMustGo]

Can't you just hear her ...

"Ve haff vays uff making you talk."

[George Gervin's Afro]

Quite apart from her unfortunate face, ugly is as ugly says, and saying "I hate all Iranians" is simply astonishing.

The shrubbies really know how to attract classy, serious, competent people.


see m-ann coulter..

[101A]

Oh! The poor put-upon conservatives in America!

I suspect that conservatives are tolerated as well by liberals as liberals are tolerated by conservatives.

It's interesting to me that so many of the faces of conservatism today routinely contend that liberals want to destroy America and that those who lean to the left politically are necessarily aligned with our current mortal enemies. I guess that's toleration.

Liberals, meanwhile question divisive policies and are, IMO, less shrill in demonizing on a personal level, but are somehow deemed to be wholly intolerant.

Although I don't deny conservatives are very good at divisive politics; liberals have their own brand; they just divide along different lines. "Pay their fair share" certainly wasn't coined by a conservative; but it sure smacks of a certain level of divisiveness - which is lapped up wholeheartedly by the crowds those lines are delivered to.

[DarkReign]

Although I don't deny conservatives are very good at divisive politics; liberals have their own brand; they just divide along different lines. "Pay their fair share" certainly wasn't coined by a conservative; but it sure smacks of a certain level of divisiveness - which is lapped up wholeheartedly by the crowds those lines are delivered to.

True. But when they target audience that line is delivered to composes something like 80% of the American population, the message holds water.

Do I agree with socialist-type wealth spreading? Certainly not.

But the divide between rich and poor is becoming more and more startling. Very few people are financially gaining from globalization/corporate health. While the middle/lower class toils check to check, with no health insurance and an ever increasing chunk of their money is "donated" to their local, state and federal government.

I sincerely hope there comes a breaking point. When the fat are too fat and the hungry are many.

[101A]

True. But when they target audience that line is delivered to composes something like 80% of the American population, the message holds water.

Do I agree with socialist-type wealth spreading? Certainly not.

But the divide between rich and poor is becoming more and more startling. Very few people are financially gaining from globalization/corporate health. While the middle/lower class toils check to check, with no health insurance and an ever increasing chunk of their money is "donated" to their local, state and federal government.

I sincerely hope there comes a breaking point. When the fat are too fat and the hungry are many.

It's working, apparently.

Top 1% of earners make 19% of the wages, but pay 36% of the taxes.

BTW: At the end of Clinton's term; the top 1% made a little over 20% of the wages.


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/fa/WealthandTaxes.png

[FromWayDowntown]

Although I don't deny conservatives are very good at divisive politics; liberals have their own brand; they just divide along different lines. "Pay their fair share" certainly wasn't coined by a conservative; but it sure smacks of a certain level of divisiveness - which is lapped up wholeheartedly by the crowds those lines are delivered to.

My point, ultimately, was to refute Wild Cobra's baseless complaint that conservatives aren't tolerated in America.

I don't dispute that each side engages in varying degrees of divisive politics, though I do find the personal attacks undertaken by the loudest voices on the right to be less tolerable than the policy-driven attacks raised by the loudest voices on the left. "Pay their fair share" strikes me as far less of a personal attack than "Liberals support terrorists" or "Liberals want to see the destruction of America."

If you see that differently from me, though, I can certainly tolerate your view on that.

[101A]

My point, ultimately, was to refute Wild Cobra's baseless complaint that conservatives aren't tolerated in America.

I don't dispute that each side engages in varying degrees of divisive politics, though I do find the personal attacks undertaken by the loudest voices on the right to be less tolerable than the policy-driven attacks raised by the loudest voices on the left. "Pay their fair share" strikes me as far less of a personal attack than "Liberals support terrorists" or "Liberals want to see the destruction of America."

If you see that differently from me, though, I can certainly tolerate your view on that.

We need a new "Civil Political Forum"

[DontHatethePlayer]

My point, ultimately, was to refute Wild Cobra's baseless complaint that conservatives aren't tolerated in America.

I don't dispute that each side engages in varying degrees of divisive politics, though I do find the personal attacks undertaken by the loudest voices on the right to be less tolerable than the policy-driven attacks raised by the loudest voices on the left. "Pay their fair share" strikes me as far less of a personal attack than "Liberals support terrorists" or "Liberals want to see the destruction of America."

If you see that differently from me, though, I can certainly tolerate your view on that.

Ah come on FWD. You mean that is the worst criticism liberals have against the conservatives?! What about the belief that conservatives went to war for control of the oil in Iraq? What about the fact that conservatives aren't willing to bring our troops home immediately? Aren't conservatives capitalisitc murderers according to liberals?

[CubanMustGo]

Don't confuse "conservatives" (who want LESS government, LESS spending) with neocons (who want more of both and want to track your every move).

[DarkReign]

Don't confuse "conservatives" (who want LESS government, LESS spending) with neocons (who want more of both and want to track your every move).
:tu

[PixelPusher]

"Blucher!"

[FromWayDowntown]

Ah come on FWD. You mean that is the worst criticism liberals have against the conservatives?! What about the belief that conservatives went to war for control of the oil in Iraq? What about the fact that conservatives aren't willing to bring our troops home immediately? Aren't conservatives capitalisitc murderers according to liberals?

I'd argue that each of the first two issues are policy-based criticisms and not personal attacks. Nevertheless, to the extent that you believe that liberals are personally attacking conservatives, my point remains: the lack of toleration goes both ways.

Again, my sole point here was to discount Wild Cobra's utterly stupid assertion that conservatives aren't tolerated in America.

[DontHatethePlayer]

I'd argue that each of the first two issues are policy-based criticisms and not personal attacks. Nevertheless, to the extent that you believe that liberals are personally attacking conservatives, my point remains: the lack of toleration goes both ways.

Again, my sole point here was to discount Wild Cobra's utterly stupid assertion that conservatives aren't tolerated in America.

I think we could probably split hairs all day long on the policy-based criticisms versus personal attacks. Regardless, I see what you are saying and agree that both are probably equally tolerated (or not tolerated) - as they are criticized. I don't think any one political group is more of a victim than the other, although the individuals in those groups may beg to differ. :spin

[DarkReign]

It's working, apparently.

Top 1% of earners make 19% of the wages, but pay 36% of the taxes.

BTW: At the end of Clinton's term; the top 1% made a little over 20% of the wages.


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/fa/WealthandTaxes.png

See, this is where I lack sympathy for the top 1%. 1% of the total popualtion in this country earns 19% of total wages paid in this country. Im crying no river for them.

Lets get some things straight. The 1% people are dependant upon the lower class. Not the other way around. The lower class buy their products, their oil, their software, etc. Without a consuming public, the 1% are common folk.

How many people do the top 1% employ? I dont know those numbers and certainly dont expect you to either. But if we went crazy and put a randomly HUGE number on it, and said 1 million people employed. Out of the 250+ million working Americans (another estimate that is probably sickeningly low), they employ 0.004% of all working class, yet reap 19% of all wages paid in the US.

Do I begrudge them their success? No, I dont believe I do. No one should be vilified for their achievement of goals (outside of politics).

But, do I feel their sting when taxed? Not in the slightest. They may outpay the common man by an absolute landslide, but theyre sailing some $45 million dollar yacht complaining how the government is unfair.

[Nbadan]

1% of the total popualtion in this country earns 19% of total wages paid in this country

Those numbers are also misleading because that 19% represents trillions of dollars in earnings...while 1% of the population is only about 3 million people...

[Nbadan]

Then there's this..

Racial breakdown of households with six figure incomes.


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/77/Race_Six_Figure_Household_Income.png


Today there are approximately 146,000 (0.1%) households with incomes exceeding $1,500,000, while the top 0.01% or 11,000 households had incomes exceeding $5,500,000. The 400 highest tax payers in the nation had gross annual household incomes exceeding $87,000,000. Household incomes for this group have risen more dramatically than for any other. As a result the gap between those who make less than one and half million dollars annually (99.9% of households) and those who make more (0.1%) has been steadily increasing, prompting The New York Times to proclaim that the "Richest Are Leaving Even the Rich Far Behind." Indeed the income disparities within the top 1.5% are quite drastic. While households in the top 1.5% of households had incomes exceeding $250,000, 443% above the national median, their incomes were still 2200% lower than those of the top .01% of houseolds. One can therefore conclude that any household, even those with incomes of $250,000 annually are relatively poor when compared to the top .1%, who in turn are relatively poor compared to the top 0.000267%, the top 400 taxpaying households.[37]


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/63/Top-1%25.png

Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affluence_in_the_United_States)

[Wild Cobra]

Those numbers are also misleading because that 19% represents trillions of dollars in earnings...while 1% of the population is only about 3 million people...
In an equal world, a group making 33.4% of the wealth would pay 33.4% of the taxes. Why is it when the wealthy already pay more than their share, they still don't pay enough? Shouldn't the group making 13.4% of the income pay 13.4% of the taxes?

That 19% is paying 36.9% of the taxes. Almost twice as much as their fair share, and liberals want them to pay more?

Everyone earning money should pay income taxes. That way everyone shares the burden instead of the false claim "I don't care if they raise my taxes."

Social Security and Medicare don't count. They are failing insurace programs.

My solution if we don't change to a fair tax...

1) Mandate a one time raise of all wage earners who pay SS and Medicare of 7.65%.

2) Change the Social Security and Medicare deductions to a "Social Tax" of 14.21%

3) Implement a flat tax where only standard deductions and exemptions apply if possible. At least reduce the different deductions people can take on their tax returns if possible. This is not necessary, but preferred for fairness. Method of this may vary greatly.

4) Any increases or decreases in taxes the government wishes to make will be reflected in the new Social Tax that everyone pays.

The idea of this is to make the workers pay check the same in the end. For every $10,000 we earn, we pay $620 in Social Security, and $145 in Medicare, for a total of $765. The employer matches this $765, so most people don’t really understand it is a cost of their production! Mandating the 7.65% raise is neutral. The employer pays the same, just transferring his $765 to the earners wages. The employee has the same net money after taxes. Half a persons Social Tax could be deducted to keep the tax tables equal if the income tax structure isn't modified.

Example:

Earned: $10,000
SS.Med: $765 (7.65% of 10,000)
Balance: $9,235

New System:

Earned $10,765
Social tax: $1,529.71 (14.21% of 10,765)
Balance: $9,235.29

Again, I am tired of the 47% of the people who pay no income taxes complaining that the tax payers don't pay enough.

Creating a burden that is realized by all will make people asking for government programs start reflecting on how it affects them. Especially when they start sharing the pain.

[CubanMustGo]

Assholes on IGNORE:

ChumpDumper

boutons_

Reason? Attack sissies who cannot contibute anything useful in my opinion. They attack instead of offering valid discourse.

:rolleyes

"Assholes"?
"Attack sissies"?

Solely because they don't bow down to what you feel is your superiority?

Doesn't your sad little sig equally make you an "attack sissy" ?

BTW what the hell is "contibute"? Taking lessons from Bush the lesser on spelling, are we?

[Wild Cobra]

:rolleyes

"Assholes"?
"Attack sissies"?

Solely because they don't bow down to what you feel is your superiority?

Doesn't your sad little sig equally make you an "attack sissy" ?

BTW what the hell is "contibute"? Taking lessons from Bush the lesser on spelling, are we?
Not at all. Most the people here disagree with me, but they at least offer points of views and discourse.

Both the two I placed on IGNORE did nothing but slander and attack without points of view involving the subject matter. Baiters I can stand, but not those who are nothing more than flamers.

Have either of them contributed to the subject matters at hand recently? I’ll bet not. I haven’t seen them discuss the contents of threads. Only attack others.

Have they changed? Are there any posting where they engage in the subject matter?

[ChumpDumper]

I still read all of ChumpDumper's posts -- I'm just butthurt that I have been proven to be not as intelligent as my 99++++ claim intimated.

[101A]

See, this is where I lack sympathy for the top 1%. 1% of the total popualtion in this country earns 19% of total wages paid in this country. Im crying no river for them.

Lets get some things straight. The 1% people are dependant upon the lower class. Not the other way around. ...

You sure?

I think your 1 million employed estimate is WAY,WAY WAY too LOW!

If not, who the hell IS employing all those people?

Each doctor, on average, in this country has SEVEN support and administrative employees working in their office. A 10 lawyer law firm employs roughly 50 other people. Small business owners (who make up the bulk of that 1%, btw), employ varying numbers, but generally the higher the pay, the more their company has grown, the more people they employ (I currently employ THIRTY in mine, and am not sure if I am top 1% or not - not sure where the cutoff is).

People rail on CEO's salaries ALL the time, and talk about the idle rich (the yacht comment), but that is tantamount to conservatives ragging on the "Welfare Mothers" - a red herring in both cases, IMO. Welfare has as much to do with government wastefulness, as CEO's and heiress's do in making up the bulk of the top 1%.

Each respective group, however, SURE makes a nice political target; which BOTH sides use effectively to their own advantage...which, btw, was my point in the first place.

[101A]

Duplicate

[DarkReign]

You sure?

I think your 1 million employed estimate is WAY,WAY WAY too LOW!

If not, who the hell IS employing all those people?

Each doctor, on average, in this country has SEVEN support and administrative employees working in their office. A 10 lawyer law firm employs roughly 50 other people. Small business owners (who make up the bulk of that 1%, btw), employ varying numbers, but generally the higher the pay, the more their company has grown, the more people they employ (I currently employ THIRTY in mine, and am not sure if I am top 1% or not - not sure where the cutoff is).

People rail on CEO's salaries ALL the time, and talk about the idle rich (the yacht comment), but that is tantamount to conservatives ragging on the "Welfare Mothers" - a red herring in both cases, IMO. Welfare has as much to do with government wastefulness, as CEO's and heiress's do in making up the bulk of the top 1%.

Each respective group, however, SURE makes a nice political target; which BOTH sides use effectively to their own advantage...which, btw, was my point in the first place.

I will ask this question first, then continue.

What income does one have to earn to be in the top 1%?

IMO, the top1% is not composed of doctors and lawyers. They are CEOs or owners of humungous companies, multi-multi-millionaires.

And I was wrong (figured I would check it out). Way wrong.

http://www.sugisorensen.com/taxes/index.html

Scrolling down, the top 1% in 1999 made $719,000 a year or more. To be in the top 20%, one has to make above $132,000 a year.

According to those charts, there are only 1.2 million families in the top 1%. In the top 20% are 23.6 million families.

And you were rights, nearly half of the population pays no tax at all.

That is wrong. I retract my previous posts. Thats complete bullshit. I still cry no river for the elite though. But something must be done to offset the gaping disparity.

[101A]

I will ask this question first, then continue.

What income does one have to earn to be in the top 1%?

IMO, the top1% is not composed of doctors and lawyers. They are CEOs or owners of humungous companies, multi-multi-millionaires.

And I was wrong (figured I would check it out). Way wrong.

http://www.sugisorensen.com/taxes/index.html

Scrolling down, the top 1% in 1999 made $719,000 a year or more. To be in the top 20%, one has to make above $132,000 a year.

...

Those numbers aren't thresholds; they are averages; to be in the top 20% you have to make far less than $132,000, and to be in the top 1% the number is not nearly $719,000; those are simply the average incomes for families (not even individuals) in those quintiles. I think top 20% is somewhere around $75 - $90K and top 1% is around $250,000 - and does include many doctors and lawyers. If somebody could find the data, and prove whether or not I am speaking out my ass, I would appreciate it.

[101A]

Our tax money at work - info. from the census bureau (http://pubdb3.census.gov/macro/032007/hhinc/new05_000.htm)

97K per year (family) gets you into the top 20%; $174K is upper 5 percent. It doesn't break it down into the top 1%, but we all get the idea. Top 5% ain't THAT much money (A couple of successful people at the top scale of a couple of middle class jobs could get there) - but those cats are shouldering a great portion of the tax burden in this country. They certainly shouldn't be disparaged as not "paying their fair share".

[xrayzebra]

You sure?

I think your 1 million employed estimate is WAY,WAY WAY too LOW!

If not, who the hell IS employing all those people?

Each doctor, on average, in this country has SEVEN support and administrative employees working in their office. A 10 lawyer law firm employs roughly 50 other people. Small business owners (who make up the bulk of that 1%, btw), employ varying numbers, but generally the higher the pay, the more their company has grown, the more people they employ (I currently employ THIRTY in mine, and am not sure if I am top 1% or not - not sure where the cutoff is).

People rail on CEO's salaries ALL the time, and talk about the idle rich (the yacht comment), but that is tantamount to conservatives ragging on the "Welfare Mothers" - a red herring in both cases, IMO. Welfare has as much to do with government wastefulness, as CEO's and heiress's do in making up the bulk of the top 1%.

Each respective group, however, SURE makes a nice political target; which BOTH sides use effectively to their own advantage...which, btw, was my point in the first place.

101 I have often wonder how a doctor can make it
in practice. It must cost him several thousand dollars
a day just to open the door. And you look at what is
charged and what is actually paid by insurance and
Medicare, figuring on 4 patients an hour, 8 hours
a day, five days a week. Most get about 80 bucks for
a visit that is about 2500 bucks coming in. But look at
the technology he has to invest in, office supplies and
medical equipment and supplies.

I know it is expensive to get sick, but I still wonder if
I was a young person I would invest 8 years of my time
and hundreds of thousands of my dollars to be a
doctor.

[101A]

101 I have often wonder how a doctor can make it
in practice. It must cost him several thousand dollars
a day just to open the door. And you look at what is
charged and what is actually paid by insurance and
Medicare, figuring on 4 patients an hour, 8 hours
a day, five days a week. Most get about 80 bucks for
a visit that is about 2500 bucks coming in. But look at
the technology he has to invest in, office supplies and
medical equipment and supplies.

I know it is expensive to get sick, but I still wonder if
I was a young person I would invest 8 years of my time
and hundreds of thousands of my dollars to be a
doctor.


Try 15 - 20. Seriously. When was the last time a doctor (I'm talking general practicioner here) spent 15 minutes with you in an exam room? 2-3 minutes on average.

[101A]

101 I have often wonder how a doctor can make it
in practice. It must cost him several thousand dollars
a day just to open the door. And you look at what is
charged and what is actually paid by insurance and
Medicare, figuring on 4 patients an hour, 8 hours
a day, five days a week. Most get about 80 bucks for
a visit that is about 2500 bucks coming in. But look at
the technology he has to invest in, office supplies and
medical equipment and supplies.

I know it is expensive to get sick, but I still wonder if
I was a young person I would invest 8 years of my time
and hundreds of thousands of my dollars to be a
doctor.


Also, specialists make the REAL money. My buddy (a paranatologist) is about to rotate out of the Air Force after they paid for his Med School, and he gave them 14 years. Anyway, he's being offered $450 - $600 K salary by several practices around the country. That kind of dough could be worth 8 years.

[xrayzebra]

Try 15 - 20. Seriously. When was the last time a doctor (I'm talking general practicioner here) spent 15 minutes with you in an exam room? 2-3 minutes on average.


Guess I am lucky, my doctor spends at least 10-15 mins
whenever I visit. The last time I went in. He and his
partners had sold their practice to a medical company and
of course they had their little thingy. I told him the
new forms they had sucked, that if I took them literally
I would need his (the doctors) date of birth....he looked
at me really funny. I told him I was serious. He called
the business manager in and I told her the same thing.
They changed the form. I ask why he sold the business
and he said that trying to run an office, hiring/firing
and finding people got to be too much of a hassle. Now
he was free to do what wanted and practice medicine and
didn't have the other headaches. I have used him for
about 20 years so maybe I get a little more consideration
and you know me sometimes I don't agree with
all he says........ :lol

The form ask who my doctor was and to the right of
it it ask for DOB, I know, I know. They wanted mine,
but that isn't what the form ask, now is it.

[Wild Cobra]

Why do some people think that those earning in the top 1% have less of a right to keep and spend their money as they desire, than those earning the average?

Is it jealousy?

The ideas some of you people support just makes it appears that all money earned is the governments, and we should be thankful we get to keep as much as we do. Sorry. I don’t believe that way.

[ChumpDumper]

When did we stop talking about the drag queen?

[Nbadan]

When did we stop talking about the drag queen?


Should we start a male/female poll?