.
.
.
Rallying the troops of elderly with cries of “I feel your pain!’ former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi claims to stand for the poor and downtrodden. Actually, former Speaker Pelosi has become wealthy as an alleged advocate of the poor and downtrodden. The average working Joe may be slugging his way through the toughest economic times in more than a half century but Ms. Pelosi saw her individual net worth grow by 62% JUST LAST YEAR. Pelosi was worth at least $35.2 million in the 2010 calendar year, according to a financial disclosure report released Wednesday. She reported a minimum of $43.4 million in assets and about $8.2 in liabilities. For 2009, Pelosi reported a minimum net worth of $21.7 million.
That is pretty valuable defense of the poor and elderly. If only she could be as effective for those she claims to work for as she is for herself . . .
Good for Nancy. She works very hard, and has many grandchildren. Let’s try to help her get back into the speakership next year – she was the most effective we’ve had in decades.
Its hard for me to believe that even you believe she was effective Vern. Screechy, yes. Annoying, yes. Hypocritical, yes. Effective, NO!!
See, this is you guys’ groupthink, that keeps you from even noticing anything real.
First of all, Screechy? Hillary Clinton is screechy. Sarah Palin is screechy. Loretta Sanchez is screechy. Nancy has a mellow, smoky voice, and stabs her enemies softly.
Secondly, effective? Really, the record is clear – she accomplished more of what she wanted than practically any speaker in recent memory.
Annoying, I don’t doubt that she annoys you. I hope you’re ready for some more sessions of annoyance.
How many jobs has Boner created lately there, GW?
I say we take all of her money, and give it to the poor. I don’t see why she’d have a problem with that. Isn’t that what she wants to do with the other “rich” people?
Yes, that’s right–she wants to take all the money from the rich people. Sure.
Why you folks embrace the “suffering of the rich” is beyond me. Why on earth can’t they pay an extra 3%–too terrible for them? Have you noticed the massive income disparity in this country? Geez.
Your math is hilarious Rapscallion. In California, the top combined income tax bracket is 51% while a MAJORITY of the people pay 0%. That is not a 3% disparity.
A. Your non-partisan source for those statistics?
B. Can you point out where Rapscallion was talking about California? Or are you normally in the habit of skirting someone’s point by shifting the focus?
anon. I couldn’t help myself after reading your opening.
Are you saying that partisan sources doctor 1040’s, W-2’s and 1099’s?
Without having Geoff show me his tax returns I will bet you a steak dinner that his tax rate and payments are higher than yours. Just a wing it remark.
You’re telling our commenter that Geoff probably makes more money than him? And this means that Geoff is probably right?
I guess that’s Republican thinking for you…
Brother Vern. Not all all.
My only point is that Geoff pays at a higher tax rate yet gets an ugly Budget in return by our wonderful elected officials in SAC. How many “occupants” in CA pay no income taxes?
And yet … maybe you don’t know this – the poor IN EVERY STATE BUT VERMONT pay a larger percentage of their income in taxes than the wealthy.
It’s just not income taxes.
Vern. I will agree that we pay more than just Federal and State income taxes.
When I worked in NYC I also had to pay city taxes, something that hasn’t crossed into Mission Viejo AS YET.
We can both create a laundry list of taxes from your morning cup of java to multiple taxes on fuel every time we fill up.
Here’s a link to 202 taxes paid by Americans that will blow your mind: http://www.newrochelletalk.com/node/2103
Just found this report. A soda tax is being proposed in PA.
“Unions: Philly soda tax would lead to job lossesJune 14, 2011, 5:14 p.m. EDT
Associated Press
PHILADELPHIA (AP) — Opponents of a proposal to tax soda to raise money for the financially troubled city school system rallied at City Hall on Tuesday, saying the plan would encourage people to leave the city to buy soft drinks and force hundreds of beverage industry employees out of work.
Tractor-trailers bearing the logos of various unions and soda companies circled the historic building, honking their horns, while several hundred people — many of them union workers — held signs urging that the idea be dropped. Mayor Michael Nutter is pushing the 2-cents-per-ounce tax on soda and other sugary beverages to help prevent cuts in the city’s cash-strapped school system. If passed, the tax would generate $60 million for the district this year and $80 million next year, preventing drastic cuts in school programs, according to Nutter’s office.”
Larry,
No. I’m saying that partisan sources MAY doctor 1040, W-2, and 1099 statistics. Are YOU saying that partisans NEVER lie or exaggerate?
Mr. Willis probably does make significantly more money than I. And so he SHOULD pay a higher rate, because he probably has access to more deductions. Just a wing it remark.
anon. I recall when the top tier tax rate was at 70 percent. When my hero Ronald Reagan cut the Federal tax rate to 35% I lost some of our prior legal deductions such as the three martini lunch and larger ticket items as defined below:
“A centerpiece of the massive $750 billion Reagan tax cut of 1981 was a provision that allowed businesses to deduct the cost of buying new equipment even faster than the equipment wore out. This “accelerated cost-recovery system” would cost $35 billion next year. Treasury I eliminated ACRS, but lobbyists persuaded the Reaganauts that the economic recovery was in large part produced by such enlightened tax cuts.”
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,956987,00.html#ixzz1PTyCJgy9
This is funny. If I am PAYING at a higher rate, then I am NOT able to take advantage of deductions. By the way, under the Alternative Minimum Tax, you lose the ability to deduct your house, your kids and just about everything else.
By the way, this is one of the most ridiculous posts I’ve ever read on this blog. The notion that GW advances — that a person of wealth can’t ALSO feel for the poor and advocate for them — is absurd. Changing the plight of the poor is an ongoing struggle. Changing the plight of the poor is particularly difficult after seeing the numbers of those entering poverty rise between 2000 and 2008 (after having declined from 1992-2000. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_poverty_rate_timeline.gif) I mean, the level of revisionist history suggested in this post is laughable.
Yeah, I’ve been making that point on this blog for three years now – such as in the seminal but ironically-titled “Can’t We All Just Get Along” which trashed everybody in the OC blogosphere at the time – and says of our own 2008 right-wing contributors Thomas Gordon and Larry Gilbert:
…they’re also able to divert themselves by posting funny-looking photos of the Democratic candidates, accompanied by such bombshell exposés as how OMG the Clintons have made a lot of money since Bill was President! (So, like John Edwards, they couldn’t possibly care about poor people.)
http://www.orangejuiceblog.com/2008/04/cant-we-all-just-get-along/
What’s the thinking behind this? Geoff does well, as we all know, even if he’ll tell us all that he started off a little lower down the rung. Why do they think nobody who’s doing well can sincerely care about those who aren’t? It’s just the Republican mindset, that all human public activity has to be necessarily selfish.
I get down on my knees and thank God that I don’t think like that.
Brother Vern. It’s time for you to fess up and tell everyone that when your 2008 post was written I was not adding photos to my posts. That task was by the Admin.
We should be careful grouping writers from either side of the aisle just to make a point.
As to those less fortunate than ourselves you are clueless as to the road I have travelled.
I didn’t get to create my own corporation and eventually retire by taking the high speed rail. You have not walked in my shoes. When I first started out I didn’t even own a ladder.
Hm. Well, I remember you and Thomas both used to do stories (probably cribbing from Newsmax and Drudge) that showed how much money certain Democratic politicians had made and attempted to imply that their concern for the poor of the country was thus somehow bullshit. They generally also had dumb photo-shopped illustrations – so maybe some of those came from Art. The illustrations were not so much the point though.
All this talk about taxes and me wondering.
Why doesn’t the politicians and their campaign organizations pay a fair rate of tax on their income?
Lol, Oh, gotta love a Republican getting up about someone being TOO rich.
And by the way, no matter how much you make in California, once you hit the top tax bracket at 11% in personal income at $100,000 you don’t pay anymore than 11%. Where the hell did you get your numbers?
http://www.tax-rates.org/California/income-tax/
And you are misleading, they don’t pay 11% on ALL that income. Geez.