No News is Good News?

Like a lot of Cubs blogs their isn't much to talk about lately. Ryan Dempster? I will comment on him in 2005.

For the past half year I have gotten interested in politics. Before the war in Iraq I didn't know the difference between a Republican and a Democrat. Or much less care there was a difference. I didn't really notice a lot of things going on in our own media that is supposed to be fair and balanced reporting but end up becoming the story themselves. I don't have a fancy degree, but isn't that the first rule of journalism? Don't become the story?

Anyways I quickly found out the hard truth when every major media organization not named FoxNews was reporting Iraq as a quagmire or another Vietnam just 10 days into the war. So many of these respected news papers and media organizations were hoping and praying for our failure. I tried to understand why, and I soon found out some of these organizations were basically on the democrats side. They appointed Liberal writers, editors, and slanted the news to what it wanted us to hear.

The most famous of the lies spread is of, "President Bush lied to us! He said Iraq was an immanent threat! He lied to the American People when Iraq posed no immanent threat!"

Any idiot with a brain can go online and look up every single State of the Union speech back to Lincoln I believe. And President Bush said, "We must stop Iraq BEFORE they become an immanent threat"

Which brings me to what I watched on 20/20 last night. John Stossel had an excellent report on Myth busting called, Lies, Myths, and Stupidity. They covered a lot of far ranging subjects. The most interesting was the DDT one that could save literally millions of peoples lives a year, but because of left wing environmentalists DDT has long since been banned for use. The problem was back in the good old days it was sprayed to heavily. Now they have figured out that in very small quantities it can work just as well.

But the one that really got me thinking was the, "Do the Rich pay their fair share?" Every single democratic candidate says that Bush gave tax relief to his rich buddies, that he isn't looking out for the middle class worker, the rich should pay more. The funny part was when Stossel was interviewing Al Sharpton and Sharpton was going on and on about this. He asked Sharpton how much do the top 1% of income earners in the US pay in taxes? First he said no more than 10%, then dropped it to, "I am sure they pay no more than 5%" Stossel asked what should they pay then? "Atleast 15%" was Sharptons response.

So Stossel whips out the IRS official chart of which income brackets pay the most and the top 1% of Americans who make over $300,000 a year pay 34% of all income tax. And the top 5% of Americans who earn over $100,000 a year make up 52% of all income tax paid.

I didn't know this, and I was shocked. I was like damn, they do kind of need some tax cuts up their. Sharpton was caught way off guard and tried to change the subject, and it makes me question do all these democratic candidates even know what they are talking about when they say the rich don't pay their fair share? Are they just stupid? Or just spinning hoping the people will believe them?

So think about that the next time you hear John Kerry saying, "The Rich don't pay their fair share." They pay more than enough. And this is a guy that will repeal the tax cuts and tax the rich even more.

I am not rich by a long shot but when the top 5% are paying 50+% of all income tax they don't need to be taxed more. I think the rest of the population, the other 95%, can cover the other half just fine.

Now lets pray to god the Cubs get out of hibernation for some real news!