The Paris Hilton Tax
For the very first time during his 6 year presidency, and just in time for the November mid-terms, Bush decided he would address the nation's oldest Civil Rights group.
The last time Bush address such a concentrated group of African Americans under one roof was the Coretta Scott King funeral, of which I have some video here.
Now, as a fellow blogger once published, "once in a while Bush has one of these, 'What the Fuck Did He Just Say?' moments during his speeches (see: Human-Animal Hybrids this year's State of the Union)." Bush's speech in front of the NAACP was no exception.
Sure, the speech had it's humorous moments (Listen here: ), and of course Bush got heckled a few times (while the White House transcript officially documented the major heckling incident as "applause"). But my favorite part of the NAACP speech was the What-the-Fuck-Did-He-Just-Say? moment that made me spit out my drink was Bush pushing the abolition of the Estate Tax to the audience.
Even though the liberals are the elitist rich crowd (according to Bush supporters), many Republicans and fighting tooth and nail to have the Estate Tax repealed. A tax for which only two tenths of one perenct of Americans are wealthy to qualify.
And, specifically pertaining to this audience, I thought I'd pass along the number of black Americans financially affected by the estate tax:
59.
Out of 38,000,000.
That's .000000015%. That's 1 in every 644,067.
That means if the entire city of Boston were comprised of black Americans, chances are not one single person would pay a tax on their estate if they passed away. By comparison, you have a .032% chance of getting hit by lightning.
Not that Bush has a record of being insensitive or out of touch...but perhaps he could have saved the Estate Tax part of the speech for this crowd -
Listen:
The last time Bush address such a concentrated group of African Americans under one roof was the Coretta Scott King funeral, of which I have some video here.
Now, as a fellow blogger once published, "once in a while Bush has one of these, 'What the Fuck Did He Just Say?' moments during his speeches (see: Human-Animal Hybrids this year's State of the Union)." Bush's speech in front of the NAACP was no exception.
Sure, the speech had it's humorous moments (Listen here: ), and of course Bush got heckled a few times (while the White House transcript officially documented the major heckling incident as "applause"). But my favorite part of the NAACP speech was the What-the-Fuck-Did-He-Just-Say? moment that made me spit out my drink was Bush pushing the abolition of the Estate Tax to the audience.
Even though the liberals are the elitist rich crowd (according to Bush supporters), many Republicans and fighting tooth and nail to have the Estate Tax repealed. A tax for which only two tenths of one perenct of Americans are wealthy to qualify.
And, specifically pertaining to this audience, I thought I'd pass along the number of black Americans financially affected by the estate tax:
59.
Out of 38,000,000.
That's .000000015%. That's 1 in every 644,067.
That means if the entire city of Boston were comprised of black Americans, chances are not one single person would pay a tax on their estate if they passed away. By comparison, you have a .032% chance of getting hit by lightning.
Not that Bush has a record of being insensitive or out of touch...but perhaps he could have saved the Estate Tax part of the speech for this crowd -
Listen:
posted by Jeremy at 6:30 PM
22 Comments:
well, he could just round up all of the black folks and put them in fema camps like he did katrina victims and deny them their first amendment rights by armed guards. yeah- i have links at my site.
The bill would lower the top estate tax rate from 55 percent to 30 percent after 2010 and increase the exemption to 5 million dollars by 2015. (MN Star Tribune 8/1/2006) I don't know what I find more offensive, your obvious racism that only 59 blacks in the United States have estates worth more than 2 million dollars(present exemption) or if you can link it, that only 59 blacks in the United States have estates worth more than 2 million dollars.
Good call, Betmo.
Anonymous…I can even believe I have to point this out, calling me racist for pointing out that 59 blacks will pay the estate tax this year according to analysis of IRS records is ridiculous. Pointing out that most black Americans are not ultra rich millionaires is not a racist statement whatsoever.
That would be like accusing the NAACP of being racist because they are advocating for more people of color in executive management positions in corporate America.
Yet Bush has his priorities straight by addressing the oldest African American Civil Rights group in existence by omitting the type of tax reform and public policy that hardly benefits the black community, and highlighting things like school vouchers and the Estate Tax that does nothing to address their concerns either. All from the first president ever to try to write discrimination and exclusion of a group of people into the Constitution. Yet those who point this out are racist?
“Roughly 38 million blacks live in the United States. Of those, an estimated 59…will pay estate taxes this year, and that number will drop to just 33 in 2009.” I suppose that 99% (save for Bob Johnson) of the black journalists and those in leadership positions who publicly scoffed at Bush’s mentioning of that in his speech, are racist too…against themselves.
Here’s some homework for you – do some research on the gap in terms of wealth and economic prosperity between people of color and white Americans. I’ll get you started:
“There is no easy way to model the wealth gap between blacks and whites based on income — because there is virtually no overlap in the wealth distribution.
The bottom 10 percent of white wealth holders overlaps with the bottom 10 percent of blacks — but that's the extent of it. After that, the bottom quarter of white wealth is equal to the top quarter for blacks. Once you've reached the median for whites, you've surpassed virtually all blacks.”
For the president to tout repealing the estate tax to a black audience as a policy that's going to help blacks gain more economic power is condescending. It suggests that blacks are not aware of issues of wealth disparity and the budget tradeoffs that estate tax repeal would require.
Medicaid, a crucial service where cutbacks have disproportionately affected blacks, could be substantially funded by estate tax revenues.
We could fully fund the No Child Left Behind program, which does not have enough money allocated to it to enable it to do its work.
Jeremy don't you think anonymous should be a real person already, all he does is fight you on everything.If one thing needs to be said it's that your not a racist. Good Post, stay strong
Ok anonymous, let me try to explain this without tasking your brain too much because it is clear that there is some confusion. The word racism is not applicable to every factual use of statistical information about minorities or racialized language when uttered. Simply put, you have to actually say something derogatory, stereotypical, untrue, hurtful, hateful and/or downright ignorant for that to be the case. Something that actually is racist by definition. Racism is a belief system that devalues people based on socially constructed categories of difference for the main purpose of creating and maintaining power relations, and is something that generally has to be engaged by people with power to be effective (i.e. have real, tangible social, political and economic consequences). Pointing out how something may adversely affect or have no benefit for minorities isn’t racist, and throwing that word around for emotive effect removes the real impact of its meaning and perpetuates fallacious modes of thinking.
The fact that so few minorities fall into higher economic categories, but rather find themselves disproportionately represented in the lower end of the economic spectrum is something that you should find offensive. Not that someone pointed that fact out to you. Unless, of course, it is knowing about inequality that you find offensive, and its “racist” attitudes toward white privilege that you were referring to when using the term racism.
Your interpretation of numerical data and its implications for people of color, i.e. what it means to you based on how you read it, says more about your own racist beliefs than the facts do by themselves. I think you might want to take a look at that – I find that understanding and confronting our racist beliefs on a regular basis ensures that we find a way to get beyond them.
I would say the repeal of the estate tax reaffirms racist notions of inequality in this country, further institutionalizing structural racial inequality through our federal tax system, and the mere fact that our dullard of a president isn’t aware of that fact when addressing minorities at the NAACP of all places just goes to show once again that he is insensitive to structural economic inequality in addition to being completely clueless. Where I find this repeated attempt at repealing the only tax we have that (barely) attempts to curb the on-going generational greed and entrenched power of the wealthiest Americans to be a sickening, perverse, and blatant abuse of power by politicians to perpetuate the economic inequality of the classes, advancing the desires of the wealthiest, most powerful Americans at the expense of the rest of us, it seems irresponsible to forget that some people suffer more by these abuses of power than others do. If pointing that out makes you uncomfortable, then perhaps you need even more exposure to it in order to prompt you to find a more productive way to deal with it, and maybe even do something about it.
there are more than one anonymous people who post here.
Just so you bedwetters know, for future reference.
Only 59 Uncle Toms will die this year
Actually there is only one that posts consistently. You can tell by both the points he makes and how he writes, and IP’s can easily be verified to see how much someone from a certain computer visits. Also, almost all of the “anonymous” posts are between 8-5, which tells me that either this person only views the site at work, or is a 7-11 clerk on the night shift.
And, if there is more than one, pick a name already – there’s nothing more pussified than commenting behind an anonymous screen name.
Again, the only comments I’ve deleted by him (or them) are ones that refer to anyone as un-American for criticizing the federal government. I actually welcome his/their comments for three main reasons.
1. A political web site with no dissent is frankly kinda boring – I even appreciate intra-progressive dissent as well (for example there are probably some Hillary Clinton supporters who read the site, whereas I’m VERY anti-Hillary…there were also some liberals who thought the invasion of Afghanistan was pointless, whereas I am a strong supporter of that war).
2. I research almost everything they say, and it allows me to see another side of any given argument.
3. Most of what they say here will have the same philosophy and comes from the same mindset. While all political figures use marketing and bumper-sticker slogans to change opinions and fish for support, the Bush administration has taken that to an amazing, never before seen level of propaganda (see the media section of this site and about a million other documentations of this). They’ve taken complex subjects and turned them into black and white, very, very simplistic views of the world, probably assuming that is all the American people can retain. Their arguments, their strong nationalism, their homophobia, their “the terrorists are gonna git cha if you don’t elect us” mentality appeals to the lowest common denominator, the “hind brain” if you will of the American people. They use fear constantly. Some people see through that and go more with the facts. Some people are captivated by it, and side with the Bush administration accordingly. It’s the Cousin Eddie effect (from the Vacation series) if you will.
They rally around bullshit: Support the government’s war means supporting the troops. Not supporting the governments war means you’re with the terrorists. Ban flag burning. Ban gay marriage. Teach religion in schools instead of sex education.
They rally around fear: Immigrants are going to take your jobs! Iraq has nukes! Social Security is drying out! If they gays marry, society will crumble! Also see the scrolling Fox News terror alert, which by the way, hasn’t sounded an alarm since the last elections…hmmm.
Think of how Bush describes the war in terms of “resolve” and “we have to stay the course, and we cannot show signs of weakness etc…speaking of global warfare as if it were a game of chicken. These kind of language, wrapped around an American flag moves certain people, they’re consumed by it, and this is what fuels them. There is no room, and I mean NO ROOM for intellectual criticism. Look how much they criticize war veterans and retired generals, while siding with people who have never seen war and who have lied about it from the beginning. That shows you how immersed in it they are, and the fact that they haven’t buckled despite mountains of facts to the contrary tells you just how captivated certain people can become. Its really become a case of, “you're either lying with us, or telling the truth against us."
It actually reflects a really easy to spot stereotype of Bush supporters (very little knowledge of sociology, flat arguments with hyper-nationalistic overtones, overly Ameri-centric view of the world, more loyalty than patriotism, lack of depth regarding global views, more likely to be a Toby Keith fan, etc) and I enjoy seeing it shine each day.
It makes me proud to be on the intellectual side along with most people who read the site.
you apparently are not paying attention to one of the annoymous people then. All you're doing is using your playbook and defining the stereotypical conservative.
All the while forgetting that I am pro-Choice, against the war on drugs, don't stand behind the president on immigration,expanding Government, spending. I bring up and agree with you on mistakes made in the war on terror process.I am for Gay marriage. I don't think since you don't support the war that you hate the troops.I'm not consumed by waving the flag. I agree with peoples rights to burn it.I have never criticized any veterans for their positions. There is room for criticism, always.
I guess you miss all that and would rather just reiterate the stereoptypes.I thought you were at least paying attention a little.
I also don't want to have teachers in public schools teach religion. I believe in finding energy resources in other places then middle east sand. As well as funding means for energy other then oil. I don't fear immigrants.
All you're doing is showing how close minded you actually are. Being open minded doesn't just mean you eat up everything the bumper stickers at your local head shop tell you.
So maybe , for the last time, you can stop trying to think you understand me. You have proved that you haven't listend to what I'm saying. If my support of President Bush on the War on Terrorism is aligned with people who also fit into your nice little generalizations, then so be it. I don't live in these nice little packaged labels you seem to have categorized so neatly. So continue to do what you do. It shows who is guided by fear here.
I also support Stem Cell research.
" So maybe , for the last time, you can stop trying to think you understand me. You have proved that you haven't listened to what I'm saying "
Ladies and gentlemen…I’ve just realized anonymous is my ex-girlfriend Michelle from Paramus New Jersey! Give her a hand everyone…
(sorry, had to get that in).
Seriously then, herein lies the problem of posting anonymously. You said, “you apparently are not paying attention to one of the annoymous people then” The fact is I’m paying attention to everyone, and the only way I can tell the difference between anonymous posters is to study the IP logs on the site, and since I’m not that calculating (and frankly, obsessed) in terms of figuring it out, I haven’t done that.
Therefore, I have to assume you’re the guy that, each and every single time I post, brings up some swiss-cheese Republican flag-waving Hee-Haw talking point that makes you sound like Cletus from the Simpsons.
Now, if you’re not that guy, I apologize, because that guy hasn’t really had one debate with me about anything that hasn’t brought out all of the things I’ve said above. If you ARE that guy, then you can sit here and tell me all the good wonderful things you support and agree with – but everything you’ve said up until now paints you in a completely different light.
Because, the truth is, about 16% of what I post about includes the Iraq war (that’s right, I just counted based on my last 50 posts). Therefore, I’m more likely to post about global warming, gay rights, flag burning, Bush faux pas, Ann Coulter, Pat Robertson, tax cuts for the rich, sex education, stem cell research, right wing Christianity, etc.
Given that let me ask you the following. You’ve just laid out the fact that you agree with me on a host of issues, most of which make up the majority of the content on this site. If you and I only disagree on Iraq, why are you disagreeing with me almost daily, and if you’re not, then I’ve got your confused with another anonymous, which is a pretty easy mistake if you keep posting as an unknown, unidentified person.
And, if you are the common anonymous poster on here, then almost everything you have said has been some sort of inflamed, borrowed response from right wing cable talk shows (just about everything in the prime time lineup) and right wing AM radio.
Therefore you can't simply distance yourself from that type of thinking, the type I described above, if you're going to continue to mimic their talking points and their views on...everything. Make sense?
Once again I am from the jeremy fan club point of view, I don't always agree with him but at least I know he wrote it. Pick a name any name.
Once again I am from the jeremy fan club point of view, I don't always agree with him but at least I know he wrote it. Pick a name any name.
“Jeremy fan club.” That sounds like something the NSA should investigate, immediately.
Well Jeremy, doesn't seem to be an Election going on and the Terror threats are raised. Whats Bushs ploy for this one ?
There was an actual terror threat, would be my best guess? No?
and all the other times it was all political.
Because some reason that would get more people to vote for Bush. Seems rational.
Just funny timing on your mention of terror threats, as if this whole war on terror is made up for some reason.
It's real.
Who said its not real? Who said there is not a threat from terrorism? Are you kidding?
You do know I have a distant cousin who died in the WTC correct?
You do understand that Doug, who posts here and disgrees with you often, was scheduled to be in tower #2 on the morning of Sept 11th in one of the upper floors for a class, correct?
You do read the posts when I talk about terror attacks, attempts and terror networks around the world GROWING, correct?
Then why would you need to tell me that the war on terror is made up??
What you're referring to is the fact that we had terror threats almost weekly, broadcast by the white house before the last elections. Most of which were not substantiated with arrests, or any concrete info whatsoever. If you want to refresh your memory, go here.
Will the Bush administration issue a terror alert when something is actually happening? Of course they will! They're happy to.
Now - answer me this. Why am I not the one asking you if you believe there is a real terrorist threat, instead of you asking me...considering my philosophy was to stay on Al Qaeda, not divert money and troops away from Afghanistan, and focus more on global terror...whereas yours is to attack Iraq that had almost nothing to do with terrorism, terrorist organizations or Al Qaeda before we invaded?
Why would we want to bog down our resources in Iraq fighting 97% home grown insurgency and getting in the middle of a blossoming civil war, instead of worrying about terror threats at home, just like we saw today?
Are we still fighting them in Iraq so we don't have to fight them here?
Why don't you want to concentrate on terrorists instead of Iraqis?
You have mention on this very site that 911 was an inside job.
You were mentioning that the raised terror levels were done falsley, without any proof.
I didn't know you lost someone on 911 .Sorry for that.
Yo udid tell me about your friend doug, good thing he wasn't there.
I do hear you talking about this threat in which you believe we are the cause for growing. I show you proof that we are doing something to thwart it. And your insults ensue.
I never said you think the war on terror is made up. I think there may be something wrong with your comprehension skills. Re-read what I wrote.
Now, we don't need to go down that road on our disagreeing views on how terrorism is dealt with. You think I'm wrong, I think you're wrong. We can move on from there.
If our resources are so bogged down, how did this major attack, a larger scale then 911, get thwarted. You do realize, that this is among many attempts that were thwarted right ? How can you say we aren't worried about threats at home, when we are constantly thwarting terrorists plots ?
We are fighting Al Queda in Iraq, along with othe TERRORIST orgs who want you,me, israel and anyone not muslim destroyed. Your 97% homegrown number is no where near correct. Check with Iran,Syria about that number.
I want to concentrate on Terrorists. Terrorists in Iraq, Brittain,US, Afghanistan (Who my brother is currently fighting there, much to your dismay, he is still fighting terrorism there) Indonesia, the world. Iran, North Korea, China wherever they dwell and train to kill us. I want to fight terrorism. Not appease them like you would like.Being diplomatic doesn't work with these animals.
Now Sorry If you believe our war in Iraq is taking away from our war on terrorism .They are one in the same to me and the people who are following through with this. The hundreds of thousand people in charge of keeping you safe, minus the minority in which you find. What happened today should tell you that this war in iraq is not taking anything away. We are stil stopping terrorists from killing us. Now, you might say, " Hey , we are responsible for making more terrorists because of our actions" I say BS. If fighting back makes more terrorsits,then get ready for more terrorists. We weren't fighting any of them prior to 911, look what happened. Terrorism was here long before we started to do something about it. Not doing anything does nothing but get more people killed.
”You have mention on this very site that 911 was an inside job. “
Show me where I said 9/11 was an inside job. Anywhere. I’m going to hold you to that one because I’d like to see where I wrote something like that.
”You were mentioning that the raised terror levels were done falsely, without any proof”
And you have no proof there were not political motives. The proof I have that some of them were politically motivated is that they were coming at us by the dozens before the ’04 elections, and almost ceased – for TWO YEARS thereafter. If you don’t want to read into that fine, but this administration has politicized the hell out of 9/11 since it happened, and if you don’t recognize that then you’re blind in my opinion. Remember anon, its not just the decisions this administration has made that myself and many Americans disagree with, it’s the bullshit marketing and propaganda that surrounds those very decisions.
”I do hear you talking about this threat in which you believe we are the cause for growing”
I’ve never said we are the sole cause. Fanatical Islamic states plus poverty plus oppression, plus occupation by foreign governments, plus Western governments propping up dangerous regimes in the first place, is what causes this stuff. I have said and will stand behind the fact that what the Bush administration is doing is inflaming it, not responding it. I would suggest that the hard line governments in Palestine, and Iran, both elected via Democracy’s prove this. I would say that terrorist attacks, having tripled around the globe since our invasion of Iraq supports this as well. I would say our torture policies, such as holding some low ranking soldiers responsible for Abu Ghraib, having secret torture cells, exporting prisoners for torture, not trying or even charging those in Guantanamo…all of that fuels that flames of hatred and terror (yet I’m sure you’d tell me I’d want to set these guys free at the same time).
I would, however, suggest that they would still be attacking had it not been for the Bush administration’s response. He’s not the sole cause. He and the neocons however have fanned the flames and I’m basing this on statistics.
I would also suggest that invading Iraq was not just a response to 9/11. Its been on the neocons plate du jour for years, well before Bush was even elected. Now that its convenient vis a vis 9/11, we invaded, and they’re trying to link Iraq with 9/11 and terrorism, and you’re actually buying it, thus making their job easier. They LOVE people like you. They count on you. You’re their mouthpiece, you’re their base.
Think about what I’m saying here. Invading Iraq didn’t INVENT terrorism against the United States and Europe, it caused it to rise up to the heights we’ve never seen. It has taken the one counter to fundamentalist Shiite rule in that region, and has instead bolstered it. You and I would be having VERY different conversations if we were attacking Iran right now or disavowing the Saudi government, or going into North Korea, Sudan, Syria, etc.
”I never said you think the war on terror is made up.”
No, you made a point to say, “see, its real,” as if I didn’t believe we have a major global issue with terrorism. I also object to the phrase “war on terror,” as if we’re fighting a tactic or a feeling. Our country has terrified Iraqis with our bombs and has killed innocent civilians as well. Is that terrorism, or is terrorism only when someone with dark skin and a beard pulls the grenade pin? I’ll let you think about that.
”If our resources are so bogged down, how did this major attack, a larger scale then 911, get thwarted. “
Our resources are bogged down to the point where there is a Pentagon report saying we can’t outlive the insurgency/civil war in Iraq. I can also say that British and Pakistani intelligence thwarted this, neither of which have overwhelming percentages of troops in Iraq. Yes we’re thwarting plots often – some of which we’ll never know about. I totally applaud that and applauded it when the Clinton administration thwarted many major plots as well such as the Millennium bombing. I did not applaud when we weren’t able to thwart 9/11 because the Bush administration wasn’t even close to the slightest bit focused on counter terrorism.
”Your 97% homegrown number is no where near correct. Check with Iran, Syria about that number”
This is officially my favorite part of your argument to dismantle.
Why check with Iran and Syria about that number…when I can check with…the PENTAGON.
When a branch of the government who is trying to shape and sell this war to the people prints in a report that less than 3% of the insurgency is comprised of foreign fighters, then you know that is not only true, its probably less.
You remember what a victory it was to kill al-Zarqawi right? Tell me where death toll in Iraq has gone since his demise. UP. We’re not fighting foreign fighters like you and the Bush administration want people to believe. We’re primarily fighting Iraqis!
The Pentagon isn’t the only body who concurs with this:
“Foreign militants - mainly from Algeria, Syria, Yemen, Sudan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia - account for less than 10% of the estimated 30,000 insurgents, according to the Washington-based Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS).”
But don’t just take their word for it..Ask those on the ground, who again, are working for the government and would under pressure from their civilian bosses to issue certain answers:
“Major General Joseph Taluto, head of the 42nd Infantry Division, said that ‘99.9 per cent’ of captured insurgents are Iraqi. The estimate has been confirmed by the Pentagon's own figures; in one analysis of over 1000 insurgents captured in Fallujah, only 15 were non-Iraqi. According to the Daily Telegraph, information from military commanders engaging in battles around Ramadi exposed the fact that out of 1300 suspected insurgents arrested in five months of 2005, none were non-Iraqi”
”Now Sorry If you believe our war in Iraq is taking away from our war on terrorism .They are one in the same to me and the people who are following through with this. The hundreds of thousand people in charge of keeping you safe, minus the minority in which you find“
Show me…show me where Iraq was a threat to me, you, and the United States. Show me the weapons they had in 2003 when we invaded, and show me the terrorism Saddam was exporting from that country, aimed at the United States. Show me terrorists who have attacked us with Iraqi dissent. Show me where the Islamic fundamentalism was brewing in Iraq. Show me how Iraq in 2003 was threatening my safety and yours and how invading that country stopped an imminent Islamic terrorist threat.
Now show me terrorists and terrorism from Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran, Yemen, Sudan, Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Oman, the UAE…
I rest my case.
Post a Comment
<< Home