posted on March 4, 2003 04:39:36 AM new
I heard this on Limbaugh yesterday. I don't usually listen to talk radio but had a long trip and caught this.
It's by Paul Johnson and is in Forbes. It pretty much sums up the United Nations in this paragraph.
The assumption, in many minds, seems to be that whereas individual powers act on the world stage according to the brutal rules of realpolitik, the U.N. represents legitimacy and projects an aura of idealism. In fact, more than half a century of experience shows that the U.N. is a theater of hypocrisy, a sink of corruption, a street market of sordid bargains and a seminary of cynicism. It is a place where mass-murdering heads of state can stand tall and sell their votes to the highest bidder and where crimes against humanity are rewarded. For many people the true nature of the U.N. was epitomized by the news that Libya, a blood-soaked military dictatorship of the crudest kind, is to chair the U.N. Commissionon Human Rights. It's people like Muammar Qaddafi who benefit from the U.N., who are legitimized by its spurious respectability.
The articial is titled "Five Vital Lessons From Iraq" and is very interesting reading. For those with an open mind anyway.
posted on March 4, 2003 05:11:08 AM new
No, the United Nations serves us well. It brings diverse factions to a table and forces an interaction which could not otherwise occur. It offers responsibility to individuals and that responsibility can and does change behavior. Think of it as a kind of training camp like those to which juvenile offenders are sent, often as a last resort before they are lost to the penal system forever.
In such camps each individual is forced to take responsibility first for him or her self - such things as personal hygiene and care of the assigned area. Later they are brought into involvement in the process of decisions which affect the entire group of detainees. Peer pressure works upon them to demonstrate that their previous abberrant behaviors are no longer appropriate and will not be acceptable within the group. Over time each individual comes to realize that it cannot survive in the camp except as a participating member of the group. The group becomes as one and also becomes all important. The individual knows it's reponsibility and also knows that a failure to the good of the group may result in it's removal. By the time that removal is a possibility the individual has been reformed and considers it's continued membership to be all important.
Similar mechanisms are at work within the United Nations. Certainly many leaders of invited nations come to the group with all the previous belligerence that they had developed on their own, but continued membership ultimately results in a responsible and participative representation. It has become clear that there is more to gain by being allowed to remain than there would be to act only for themselves.
That it works in this way is demonstrated by a comparison of the regime of Kaddafi now and his much more objectable domain of twenty years ago.
posted on March 4, 2003 06:24:01 AM new
"Think of it as a kind of training camp like those to which juvenile offenders are sent, often as a last resort before they are lost to the penal system forever"
Yes ......Run by the worst felons and mad men of the world.
posted on March 4, 2003 07:00:11 AM new
Agree Colin,
We should leave the UN and require them to vacate to another country.
Our continued involvement with the UN is not needed and I believe that no matter what the UN vote is, President Bush will still attack... what will the UN do then? Nothing...
posted on March 4, 2003 07:12:43 AM new
Colin - Your absence was noticed.
twelepole - I agree.
From the article:
The military lessons to be learned from the lead-up to the Iraq operation are profound, and all point in the same direction: America should always have the means to act alone, in any area of the globe where danger threatens and with whatever force is necessary. I agree totally with this statement.
posted on March 4, 2003 07:27:31 AM new
It's too bad that neither Paul Johnson nor Rush Limbaugh get an education by coming here to the Round Table where things are much more enlightened. Had they stopped by first before going on with more unenlightened demagogoury they would have seen and read Get It Straight About The United Nations and they wouldn't be so quick to show just how ignorant that they are to everyone. Oh! Of, course! Educated people are not their target audience, is it?
posted on March 4, 2003 08:47:20 AM new
Think I'll do a search to see if Rush has an online site....he must, everyone else does. I've been accused of listening to him/being a follower of his, so I may as well go 'take a peek'. Maybe it will give me a radio station in my area where I can listen to him too.
Edited to add: It did....he's on 3 hours a day here.
Hey...Borillar...you might want to take a look at his home page. He provides IRS stats to support his position that the "Top 50% of Wage Earners Pay 96.09% of Income Taxes". "IRS data that will remain here forever to combat the liberal's tax-cut-for-the-rich garbage."
posted on March 4, 2003 10:24:20 AM new
Borilla,
Again you have suggested "YOU" are the only authority on "EVERYTHING."
I doubt any, Many (I know you have a few Sheeple) Believe that to be true.
Many feel the UN is become passe and out of touch with it's original intent.
They are a combustion engine without fuel, without a fuel supply system. They are a lump of useless crap.
I'm trying to be a little more earthy in my vernacular. Maybe you too will take your head out of your Dictionary and be able to understand. Thought I was going to say something besides dictionary .. didn't you?
posted on March 4, 2003 12:08:42 PM new
Linda, I have never stated that the Top FIFTY-PERCENT do not pay those taxes. I stated that the Top one-percent do not pay their fair share, nor does the entire Top Ten-Percent. Otherwise, they would all for a Flat Federal Tax of Ten-Percent of Income with No Deductions because that would allow them to pass LESS taxes -- wouldn't it? Then how come the Top Ten-Percent ALWAYS SHOOT DOWN that sort of tax-cutting proposal? Answer: because they would have to pay MORE taxes with a Flat Ten-Percent, because not only is that a Maximum Tax, but also a Minimum Tax.
Now, when you can find it on Rush Limbaugh's Web Site that the Top One-Percent and the Top Ten-Percent And the Top Fifty Percent ALL are for a Flat Federal Tax Rate with No Deductions (which is also a Minimum Tax Rate), THEN you would have something worth discussing!
[ edited by Borillar on Mar 4, 2003 12:11 PM ]
posted on March 4, 2003 01:24:45 PM new
According to the article the top 5 percent pay 56.47 percent of the Tax base. The top 10 percent paid 67.3 percent of the total taxes paid.
posted on March 4, 2003 01:33:06 PM new
Doesn't matter the % of the tax base,it is the percent of their income that counts.
Bill Gates was trying to weasel out of paying his fair share of property taxes here becsuse he thought $33,000 was too much. Well DUH! You build a gazillion dollar house,with mega sq. footage on the most popular lake in town that there is and you will pay high property taxes.I pay $2,000+ taxes to live in my little 1 bedroom hovel.Is there some reason he should get a break?
posted on March 4, 2003 01:44:16 PM new
You need to give me something better then pies and charts,and numbers with no leads.That info can be twisted.
Give me names of the top earners with a tax amount paid.Then I will believe what you are stateing.At the bottom of the page it says:
Source: Internal Revenue Service, Statistics of Income Division, Unpublished Statistics, September 2002.
Why is it unpublished?.The information would have stopped a lot of bickering long ago as to fair amount of taxes paid.
posted on March 4, 2003 01:54:53 PM new
Many years ago that information did come out,the problem ,some info show like 60 Minutes showed,Many of those filers got back much more then they put in.
posted on March 4, 2003 02:20:12 PM new
A few months ago one of the "tax the rich" wackos was on some show (O'Reilly's???), and the host asked him, "So, how much do you think I should pay?" The guy hemmed & hawed about "fair" this and "fair" that. Finally in desparation the host started throwing out numbers "25%?, 30%?" etc. Finally the guy said that about 75% was about right. Can you imagine handing the gov 75% of what you make?
junquemama - Give me names of the top earners with a tax amount paid.Then I will believe what you are stateing. Give you the names....you know you're asking for the impossible. No one, even the IRS would make public the names and tax amounts anyone pays.
posted on March 4, 2003 03:34:04 PM new
No one, no matter how rich, should have to pay more than 1/3 of their income to the government. And that includes federal, state and local taxes.
posted on March 4, 2003 05:49:45 PM new
>Finally the guy said that about 75% was about right. Can you imagine handing the gov 75% of what you make?
>SIGH!< I wish that it had been ME that he'da asked that question to! I'da told him this, "The last that I heard, a seventeen-percent Federal Flat Tax Rate with No Dedications was what was reasonable. The Legislation it got shot down by the wealthy. I'm much more inclined to feel that we give this government way too much money of ours and ten-percent would be a much better figure. If our government wants to spend more money, then it has to work together in order to promote our economy so that we all earn more money and therefore, pay more taxes. It would work out quite nicely that way, wouldn't you think?"
posted on March 4, 2003 06:26:12 PM new
Flat rate taxation is like tort reform. It will never happen because a large part of Congress are lawyers and will never cut off their gravy supply.
posted on March 4, 2003 07:31:33 PM new
You're absolutely right about that. Anyone should realize that every tax deducation is a special favor to some special interest. Who are all of these people that get all of these special interest favors and don't pay taxes? Who are the ones who Do end up paying because they don't qualify for those special tax breaks? When you answer that, you end up feeling like only an amendment to the Constitution or an outright revolt will even make this tax system fair.
posted on March 5, 2003 04:34:16 PM new
Things Limbaugh and the Neo-Republicans WILL NOT tell you.
Sure the top 50% pay 90+% of the income tax and the top 5% pay 40+%
Okay, what the hell do those number mean?
Is it the top 50% of the population or wages
Is it the top 5% of the population or wages.
Make a huge difference
Usually its wages, helps the Republican more their point without letting out the actual truth.
True the top 5% pay 40% of the taxes, but they also make 90% of the Gross National Income and probably 92-93% of the Disposable Income(that stuff that is left over after paying for the neccessities of life like food, clothing, shelter and BMW's)
The rest of the 50% make probably get almost the rest of the disposable income.
Therefore the bottom 50% are having to cut back on neccessities, just to pay taxes, or they don't make enough to owe taxes.
By the way, these are old percentages, since then the classes have diverged even more
To make it a true test of tax burden,(and it is something nobody would ever do because it would be absolutely obscene) make the statistic as a percentage of their Income. The top 5% probably pay less than 1% of their Gross Income whereas the middle 20% pay 15-20% of their gross. The bottom 20% pay a negative percentage.
Not single arguement would ever be made again to cut the wealthiest's taxes if this was common knowledge.
***********************************************
Hey, I had to do a economics report on it when I was in college a million years ago or so it seems. All the information was from WSJ, NYT article and government reports. WSJ hadn't discovered pictures or color yet.
I became a Nudist not because of the Sun, Fresh Air and Freedom, but because I got tired of people making fun of the way I dressed
posted on March 6, 2003 12:22:03 AM new
>Those of us with children and mortgages will pay more through a flat tax.
REAMOND, if people want those tax deductions, they should get them from their state tax program, not the Federal one. One thing that this does is to shift a lot of the lobbying and bribe money from the Federal level and take it to the state level, which is much more expensive for those handing out the bribes. Federal Tax should be a Flat Tax and have absolutely NO Deducations for ANYTHING and under ANY circumstances!
posted on March 6, 2003 01:05:00 AM new
mlecher, you make some very good point. Actually THE point. The problem is that you used NUMBERS. Because of that, Rush Limbaugh supporter's eyes will glaze over in non-comprehension and we'll be back listening to this very same garbage that they spew out within six months time. The only real thing that ought to be done is to only allow those Rush Limbaugh types of people do the manual labor in society and nothing else and under heavy supervision and also heavily sedated when not working.
posted on March 6, 2003 02:46:09 AM new
mlecher,
Spoken like a true Comrade.
WSJ didn't have graph's? Had to be in the late 70's or before.
The flat tax would be a good idea if the IRS had anyway of collecting it. They can't collect what's owed now.
I'm sure that 10% flat tax for the welfare people will really help too.
Of course Taxes will probably go to 12% in a year so we can cover band instruments and lessons for a new Democrat mandate to help the poor get jobs in marching bands.
15% the following year to cover the increasing costs of managing the new Dept. C.R.A.P (Counsel for Rap music, Air guitar and Parades).
Should I go on? It will never happen and if it did it would be just another mess.
posted on March 6, 2003 03:44:44 AM new
HEY Men & Women of ‘ethnicity’ in USA check out this crock’o’rhetoric.
OR
If you’d rather accept colin “interesting reading. For those with an open mind anyway.”
Paul Johnson,
“Britain, which is not so much an ally of America as it is a member of the same family, will continue to serve as the geographical center of the Anglosphere. “
“France is not to be trusted at any time, on any issue. “..
“have to decide whether France should be allowed to remain as a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council, with veto power, “
US have apparently used veto 9 times, each time in relation to Israel or wider Middle East.
I believe France has not.
“Germany has been lured by France into a posture of hostility toward the Anglosphere”
“Other than that,” (UK) “the U.S. should put its trust in the seas and oceans, which offer a home and a friendly environment to its forces and do not change with the treacherous winds of opinion.”
“U.N. is a theater of hypocrisy, a sink of corruption, a street market of sordid bargains and a seminary of cynicism. It is a place where mass-murdering heads…….blah blah blah blah”
He’s not talking about US ‘criminal justice’ or 'presidential election' system is he.?
Is this guy running for president of PNAKKK, oops PNAC, or what??
"The U.S. must not merely possess the means to act alone if necessary; it must alsocultivate the will. Fate, or Divine Providence, has placed America at this time in the position of sole superpower, with the consequent duty to uphold global order and to punish, or prevent, the great crimes of the world."
Who's gona do that? Poindexter, J Bush, or you gona sub-contract.
While some ‘Anglo' supremacists demand thanks and ‘loyalty’, perhaps those same ones can go buy & luv a dog, & be reminded about evolution and how they were still throwing stones at one another while the rest of the civilised world were making pendulums levers and triangles.
It seems USA can’t even buy friends any more.
Gee, after seeing Midnight Express, I would have thought the Turks to be the last to turn down a BRIBE.
