Taxes: Define "Fair Share" and how do you know when you have arrived at it?

I tried asking a similar question in the past. "How do you define rich?" and teh responses I got were all very subjective. There really is no measure what everyone can agree on.

The reason I ask is that I believe that "fair share" is and will always be a moving goalpost. It is a mutation of the idea that if there is bad situation somewhere, anywhere, then an equal amount of fault must be assigned somewhere else.

I'm not keen on Wall Streeters. I don't see their actual value matching up with their compensation. But, pre-bailout, I considered it none of my business because it quite simply wasn't. Post bailout, it chafes me to see these guys picking up big bonus....if and only if their firms took a bailout.

GM is paying big bonuses with bailout cash too, yet that seems to go unnoticed by the press and the OWS types.

That said, I don't see the connection between what a Wall Street guy makes and, say, someone who can't pay back their $120,000 student loan because they spent it to get a degree in Womyn/Gender studies from NYU instead of learning a saleable trade. The two are not connected to me except that the OWSers want the material benefits that they see others having.

When the top 1% pay 40% of all federal taxes and the bottom 50% pay nothing, it's obvious there are issues with fairness.

The left won't be happy until they can steal all the money of those they deem "rich."

"Fair share" to a Liberal means "more".  They will never define an exact amount because it will never be enough.  Once they get more they will want more.  Once they get more of more they will want even more.  It will never end until the financial system collapses.  Only after it collapses will they be satisfied with what they got, I think, but even that is questionable.  I don't think they will ever be satisfied.

When 25% of millionares pay NO taxes - that's not their "Fair share".

>>When 25% of millionares pay NO taxes - that's not their "Fair share".


Beetos, out of the estimate 10 million millionaires there's only 0.066% that pay no taxes.

These are the entrepreneurs that take their money and invest it so the rest of us can have jobs.  Sometimes you win and pay taxes, and sometimes you lose.

I stand corrected Cars - it's 25% of millionaires that pay less in taxes than their middle class counterparts:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=per%20centage%20of%20millionaires%20in%20us%20that%20pay%20no%20taxes&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CDcQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cbsnews.com%2F8301-503544_162-20120147-503544.html&ei=7z2gTo3BFKqRiALIkNFR&usg=AFQjCNEkKnYPYdn9EjVzX1UBnOrqzauD4g&sig2=5Om1A1s72SVWcaNJjzRXag&cad=rja


It's only about 1500 of them that paid no taxes.


Now, how come when millionaires pay no taxes, in your mind, it's good for the rest of us, but you keep ranting about the 50% of Americans who pay no taxes?  You're going to have to start issuing a disclaimer that "the 50% who pay no taxes are deadbeats *except for the 1500 job creators in there".

>>Now, how come when millionaires pay no taxes, in your mind, it's good for the rest of us, but you keep ranting about the 50% of Americans who pay no taxes?

If you want to soak the rich, then lower tax rates.  The "rich" will take their money out of shelters, invest in America, create jobs, and pay taxes.  

Plus, a lot of the "rich" invest their money - sometimes they win, sometimes they lose.  The winners create jobs and wealth for others.

And why are you so worried about 1,500 millionaires out of 10 million?  What is that % of the total?

>Now, how come when millionaires pay no taxes,

Taxes are paid on income. You can be a millionaire and and have no taxable income.

>>Taxes are paid on income. You can be a millionaire and and have no taxable income.

In every other thread, those who pay no taxes are LAZY DEADBEAT LEACHING PARASITES - to paraphrase Cars.

those who pay no taxes are LAZY DEADBEAT LEACHING PARASITES

Yeah, but if you are rich, you parasite your wealth and no one really cares. :)

So rich don't collect social security?  

What about retirees?  They don't pay taxes because they don't make enough.  

My point is that 50% meme is BS because it includes people like these.

So rich don't collect social security?

What about retirees?  They don't pay taxes because they don't make enough.  

Just because they do not pay taxes now, it does not mean they did not do so prior to now, and I think a lot of rich do not collect SS (never actually seen statistics on this)

>>So rich don't collect social security?

Who TF cares?  They're buying cars, boats, eating out, giving to charities, taking vacations...which helps others.

Most of the "rich" worked their way to that; it wasn't given to them.

>>Who TF cares?

Exactly.  As long as they're rich, it doesn't matter what they do.

>>Exactly.  As long as they're rich, it doesn't matter what they do.

If you want to protest the rich, then protest George Soros.  That man has done a lot of damage here and else where in the world.

What damage has Soros done to America?  Please be specific.

>>What damage has Soros done to America?

Noticed how you specified America.  Obviously you don't care about the damage he's done to foreign currencies.

Soros is a bottomless pit of funding for left-wing causes.  And we've seen what great damage that ideology has done in the last 3  years.   Skyrocketing unemployment, record setting deficits and trillions added to the debt, government takeovers.

Soros is a very dangerous, rich person.  

I specified America because I'm not familiar with all that has affected foreign currencies.

Aside from an ideological difference, you haven't specified anything.

Still, I'm sure Glenn Beck would be proud of you.

I'm not familiar with all that has affected foreign currencies.

On September 16, 1992, Black Wednesday, Soros's fund sold short more than $10 billion in pounds.
The UK withdrew from the European Exchange Rate Mechanism, devaluing the pound, earning Soros an estimated $1.1 billion. He was dubbed "the man who broke the Bank of England". In 1997, the UK Treasury estimated the cost of Black Wednesday at £3.4 billion.

Thanks for the info Leon.

I'm not familiar with Black Wednesday, but it sounds an awful lot like what the investment banks were doing:  

Selling derivatives based commodities as good investments, while going short on the same investments, IE betting on them to fail.

So Cars, does that mean you're in agreement with the OWS???

And if you're condemning Soros, shouldn't you also condemn Eric Cantor?

http://www.salon.com/2011/06/28/eric_cantor_conflict_of_interest/

Let's not forget Soros' insider trading conviction, start of smear websites, funding of OWS, pocketing $10 billion betting on the US downgrade.


>>And if you're condemning Soros, shouldn't you also condemn Eric Cantor?
For potentially having $1000 invested?  Wonder what he'll do with that return.


Did Soros Make $10 Billion Betting on Downgrade?? ^
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2023809/Did-George-Soros-win-10-1-return-S-Ps-US-credit-rating-downgrade.html

>Selling derivatives based commodities as good investments, while going short on the same investments, IE betting on them to fail.

No, that was just a sideline, the illegal piece.

How the banks got introuble was by leveraging their bets with overvalued assets. Once the value of their securities began to fall, they could not meet margin calls. The counter party risk became higher than the the underlyer risk.

According to his latest financial disclosure statement, which covers the year 2010 and has been publicly available since this spring, Cantor still has up to $15,000 in the same fund. Contacted by Salon this week, Cantor’s office gave no indication that the Virginia Republican, who has played a leading role in the debt ceiling negotiations, has divested himself of these holdings since his last filing. Unless an agreement can be reached, the U.S. could begin defaulting on its debt payments on Aug. 2. If that happens and Cantor is still invested in the fund, the value of his holdings would skyrocket.

“If the debt ceiling isn’t raised, investors would start fleeing U.S. Treasuries,” said Matt Koppenheffer, who writes for the investment website the Motley Fool. “Yields would rise, prices would fall, and the Proshares ETF should do very well. It would spike.”

The fund hasn’t significantly spiked yet because many investors believe Congress will eventually raise the debt ceiling. However, since Cantor abruptly called off debt ceiling negotiations last Thursday, the fund is up 3.3 percent. Even if an agreement is ultimately reached before Aug. 2, the fund could continue to benefit between now and then from the uncertainty. (One tactic some speculators are using is to “trade the debt ceiling debate” — that is, to place short-term bets on prices as they fluctuate with the news out of Washington.)

BTW - the dailymail is a tabloid.  It's like you're quoting the national enquirer.  Even so, from the article:

But a source with knowledge of the firm said Soros was not involved in the rumoured trade and questioned whether in fact there had been such a trade at all.

See what they did there?  That's a typical Fox news technique.  Start the story with an accusatory question, and even if the answer is "NO", the headline still pops and the lemmings run with it.  They never actually said that he did what the headline implies.

>> That's a typical Fox news technique.

What's a "fox news technique"?




Ok, so you have $1k to $15K on Cantor?  I'll raise you millions with this one!

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s husband, a real estate developer and investment banker, stands to make millions of dollars in a previously undisclosed residential real estate project in California as a partner with the father of a woman Mrs. Pelosi helped become ambassador to Hungary, records show.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/oct/10/pelosis-disclosure-belated-in-husbands-land-deal/

That's great Cars!

Now following that logic, you must agree that Justice Clarence Thomas should recuse himself from ruling on Obamacare due to the money his wife's employment?

http://www.billpressshow.com/2011/02/11/clarence-thomas-and-a-health-care-conflict-of-interest/

I think Thomas should just for being a black conservative.

Where are you  going with that?

This thread is now sooooo off topic that I think its time to close it. Besides its Friday and I need more points in this zone.

You'll never achieve a fair amount.  Fair is not a measurable goal.  Everyone's definition of fair is different.  Liberals believe fair means the rich pay all the taxes except the politicians of course.  "Conservatives" believe in lowering taxes for everyone.  Libertarians believe fair is a flat tax rate for everyone.  I agree with a flat rate tax (no deductions, credits, etc), although ultimately I believe in abolishing the income tax.

So there really isn't an answer to your questions except nothing will ever be deemed fair by everyone.

>>Liberals believe fair means the rich pay all the taxes except the politicians of course.  "Conservatives" believe in lowering taxes for everyone.


That would almost be offensive if it wasn't so hilarious.

Explain how it's not true.

Liberals by definition believe in income distribution.  Conservatives believe in lower taxes.  Just because most politicians sit in the middle doesn't change what the parties are SUPPOSED to stand for.

lib·er·al
   /'l¿b¿r¿l, 'l¿br¿l/ Show Spelled[lib-er-uhl, lib-ruhl] Show IPA
adjective
1.
favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
2.
(often initial capital letter) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.
3.
of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism.
4.
favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, especially as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
5.
favoring or permitting freedom of action, especially with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.
EXPAND
6.
of or pertaining to representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and monarchies.
7.
free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant: a liberal attitude toward foreigners.
8.
open-minded or tolerant, especially free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc.
9.
characterized by generosity and willingness to give in large amounts: a liberal donor.
10.
given freely or abundantly; generous: a liberal donation.
11.
not strict or rigorous; free; not literal: a liberal interpretation of a rule.
12.
of, pertaining to, or based on the liberal arts.
13.
of, pertaining to, or befitting a freeman.
COLLAPSE
noun
14.
a person of liberal principles or views, especially in politics or religion.
15.
(often initial capital letter) a member of a liberal party in politics, especially of the Liberal party in Great Britain.

Hmm, I didn't see anything about income distribution in the definition.  

You said "Liberals only want the rich to pay taxes" and I'm calling BS on that.

Next you said Conservatives want lower taxes for everybody, but they keep making noise about raising taxes on the bottom 50% and lowering taxes on corporations and tax holidays for them and the like.  So I call BS on that too.

Beetos,

OK, sorry I shouldn't have said a dictionary definition.  I'm talking definition as in what the liberals these days stand for.  How many of the liberals in Congress were against raising taxes once again on the rich?  Obama himself wanted to raise taxes on the rich and he is quite liberal, democrat or whatever you want to call him.  Honestly I call them socialists because that's what type of policies they try to impose.  

As far as Conservatives, I don't think there is one conservative in Congress.  They are all center, which is why I said what I said.  Although I do agree that everyone should be paying taxes, but that is a libertarian view.

One thing I give credit to the Liberals for is they are definitely more left than the conservatives are right.  Every year the conservatives move more and more left.  It's very disturbing imo.

CCSOFlag,

We are all entitled to our opinions.  Yours and mine are different.  I see Washington too far to the right, and I think it has been for some time.

If we are a microcosm of the country, somewhere between your opinion and mine is a reasonable middle ground.  That's the power of this country;  that differing opinions and ideas can be  freely expressed in the hopes of creating a more perfect Union.

Therefore, I'm glad you disagree with me.   Thanks for sharing your opinion.

>>I didn't see anything about income distribution in the definition.

You probably won't either.  This is not something that this party will go around bragging about.  "Um, yeah, our party, the Liberals like to take from those who have money and give it to those who don't because it just makes us warm and fuzzy inside."  This is what the other party accuses the Liberal party of doing.  Likewise I doubt you will find in the definition of the Conservative that our goal is to lower the taxes of the rich so they can become richer and poorer can become poorer.  This is an accusation that the Liberals say Conservatives do.  Whether these statement are true, is purely subjective.  Boy, phew, I hate to brake it down this easy so Liberals can understand.

I see Washington too far to the right, and I think it has been for some time.

I can totally see that too.  I have learned you are far left as I am far right.  Although I grow tired of saying right, and instead I say libertarian, but that's beside the point.  It's interesting how our perspectives change things though.  I would never have thought today's politicians as too far to the right.  But thanks for that, it definitely opens my eyes to the other side of the story. :)  As I've always said, there's nothing wrong with any specific government system.  They all work in certain ways, it's just a matter of preference.  I know we find it hard to agree on things, but I always enjoy hearing your side of the spectrum.  (although sometimes you can get a bit nasty toward Cars, although I guess he deserves it at times LOL)  But still I always enjoy hearing other's perspectives.  

If we are a microcosm of the country, somewhere between your opinion and mine is a reasonable middle ground.
I think we are.  And you are right.  Most people want the middle ground, and people like you and I will never be happy with the middle ground.  But ultimately when it comes down to it, I'm content with my life.  I'm fine living where I live, and happy with the friends I have.  I'm just afraid the government will continue to take more of my freedoms and money away until I won't enjoy it any more.  Know what I mean?


And yes, I'm glad you disagree as well, and keep saying your opinions.  I always enjoy hearing them.

On this I agree with you 100% CCSOFlag.

Cars knows how to push my buttons, and I can almost see him smiling when he's posting things of that nature, but I love him and he knows it.  He's given me more points than anyone, and I wouldn't be able to enjoy this topic area as much as I do without him.  

LOL, yes I'm sure he does smile.  He loves to push people's buttons, fortunately he's never pushed mine.  At least not that I remember.

>>Cars knows how to push my buttons, and I can almost see him smiling when he's posting things of that nature, but I love him and he knows it.

Likewise.  :)



>>He loves to push people's buttons, fortunately he's never pushed mine.

Great minds think a like.


Beetos, wouldn't be as much fun on here without you.

>>free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant: a liberal attitude toward foreigners.


Joe Biden:

“I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American presidential candidate who is articulate and bright and clean-cut and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that’s a storybook, man"

"You CANNOT go into a 7-11 or a Dunkin Donuts without an Indian accent."

Senator Robery Byrd:

There are white n**gers. I've seen a lot of white n**gers in my time.

Surely BIden is wrong and there has been at least ONE other mainstream, clean, articulate black person???

Good morning Cars,

You're not going to trick me into defending Biden again ;-)

>>You're not going to trick me into defending Biden again ;-)

Biden is a good source of entertainment.  

>Biden is a good source of entertainment.  

Every administration apparently needs someone like that. If it Biden was not there, we would need to invent someone.

I just wanted to make sure and post something and get my Fair Share of points.  I know I'm not contributing anything useful here on this thread, but the way I see it is it's not my, since I was busy doing other things, and well I really want my fair share.

Yes, and since we are distributing everything with out a bias of merit, a well deserved 'C' grade should be awarded to all.

But leon, what you think is fair is not fair to me.  Since I haven't wasted a bunch of time on this thread, I should recieve an A.  Plus since I didn't make as mony post, I should get the lion's share of points, and in case no one has noticed, I don't have Genius under my nmae (Like some evil person whom I won't mention here does.). :)  I want FREE STUFF (Points)

I would agree with that, but only if you were not a registered member of this site. Now, if you had hacked in without credencial, I say go for it: Full points and an 'A'.

Unemployment rate still at 9.1%.  Drives me freakin' insane.  The answer is so simple.

Lower taxes, remove dodd/frank, remove sarbanes oxley, ease regulations on drilling

Damm!  I get so freakin' mad when I think about these idiots voting in a worthless f*ckin' community organizer.  

Hey Cars, cheer up - unemployment dropped to an even 9%.

Pelosi says unemployment would be 15% had we not wasted a trillion dollars on a "stimulus" bill.

Course they said unemployment would be down to 8% had they not passed it.

If only we had more failed stimulus projects, such as the study of exotic ants, that end up costing tax payers $2 million.

They used the data they were given at the time.   Recently, data has come out showing the recession to be much, much worse than reported at the time.  The stimulus should have been much larger in order to achieve those results.    Republicans didn't want to fix the economy, they wanted Obama to fail so they'd have a chance to retake the Whitehouse.

Cars, being a conservative Republican I wouldn't expect you to understand the value of science and scientific research.  I know you consider yourself a conservative, but if you were any farther to the right, you'd be in yesterday.

>>They used the data they were given at the time.

They had absolutely ZERO basis for that.  They wanted a union slush fund, so they lied to get it.  

Then you have that stupid a** bigot, Joe Biden, running around saying it worked better than expected.  Better than what?




>>Republicans didn't want to fix the economy, they wanted Obama to fail

Obama and the dummocrats controlled congress for Obama's first two years.  Republicans had no voice.  They got everything they wanted - Obama failed on his own and the economy failed due to his actions.





>> I know you consider yourself a conservative, but if you were any farther to the right, you'd be in yesterday.

I'm a moderate.



On the positive side, we now at least have further proof that liberalism fails.  Never has worked, never will work.  

>They used the data they were given at the time.

Interesting how they use that as an excuse to explain their mess, but refuse to accept a similar argument when it comes to Bush and Iraq war.

Leon, that's an EXCELLENT point.

The Bush administration manipulated the data to suit their agenda.  That's the difference.

Cars, you're saying there was no financial crisis?  That Obama "made it up" to create a union slush fund, let me guess, to buy votes?  

FYI - America was founded by progressives - it's a liberal institution.  

>I'm a moderate.

Sorry cars, but I would disagree with you. The only way you can consider yourself a moderate is if you think of Regan as Left wing and Mussolini as the Right.

>>Cars, you're saying there was no financial crisis?  That Obama "made it up" to create a union slush fund, let me guess, to buy votes?  



No, we know there was a crisis.  However, Obama took the advice of Rahm Emanuel, his white house chief of staff at the time.

You never let a good crisis go to waste.

> The Bush administration manipulated the data to suit their agenda.  That's the difference.

BS, they acted on intelegence they had. Obama on the other hand came into office with an agenda to spend, spend, spend and this was a crisis too good to ignore.

FYI - America was founded by progressives - it's a liberal institution.

Yeah, really progressive, like limited taxation and weak central government.

>>Sorry cars, but I would disagree with you. The only way you can consider yourself a moderate is if you think of Regan as Left wing and Mussolini as the Right.

I'll admit being to the left of Beetos.

>>I'll admit being to the left of Beetos.

Oops...i mean to the right

>Oops...i mean to the right

And which possition can you point to, to support your claim of being a moderate? That is in what way do you disagree with the hard core conservative elements. Do you disagree on Social, Fiscal, or Foreign Policy? Do you faivor any kind of compomise with the Democrats?

>>Do you faivor any kind of compomise with the Democrats?

Why would I?  They have horrible ideas.

>>Do you faivor any kind of compomise with the Democrats?

Compromising with liberals equates to failure.

Not limited taxation - taxation without representation.   BTW - the original Tea Party used vandalism and broke laws to make their point.

Government by the people for the people, not by the corporations for the corporations.

Bush an oilman, + Cheney a defense contractor = war with oil rich nation.  To use the conservative vernacular, that doesn't pass the smell test.

Never let a good crisis go to waste - by trying to solve it?    Look at the CBO scores of Obama's plan vs. the Republican plan.   Obama's will grow the economy, the Republican plan will shrink it.  We need our lawmakers to act on behalf of the country, do what's best for it, and give up this partisan battle.  

You guys claim Democrats had control of Congress, but you ignore the gridlock caused by the filibuster of EVERYTHING by the Republicans.

PS  Cars - you may have been right the first time - you're so far to the right, you might actually be on my left!  The world is round after all.  

Not limited taxation - taxation without representation.  

And what are Progressives are trying to do now? You can not claim "taxation without representation" when taxes are levied on behave and for the benefit of those who pay none. That was exactly what teh British were doing.

Government by the people for the people, not by the corporations for the corporations.

Yeah, so you must be a big supporter of the Second Amendment and State vs. Federal government rights.

>>You guys claim Democrats had control of Congress, but you ignore the gridlock caused by the filibuster of EVERYTHING by the Republicans.

They couldn't filibuster.  Well, not until the murderer, Ted Kennedy, died.  Even after that, Obama passed his health care without a direct vote on it, by means of deeming.  That's how community organizers get things done.

>Well, not until the murderer, Ted Kennedy, died.  

Alleged murderer.

BTW, thats the difference between a conservative and a moderate Republican. :)

HA!  you two crack me up.

Wow.....I had heard about Chappaquiddick before but never really read anything about it.  I guess I can put him in the same group as Al Gore, Michael Moore, Bill Clinton, John Edwards, Warren Buffet......the list just gets longer.  Do as I say, not as I do.

You need to add Cheney to that list Berger.

Beetos, would you have voted for Ted Kennedy after he murdered Mary Jo Kopechne?

The people of massachusetts owe the rest of the country an apology for putting Kennedy and Kerry in office.

What has he done and if you say lie us into Iraq.....

DICK Cheney:

WASHINGTON — For the last four years, Vice President Dick Cheney has made the controversial claim that his office is not fully part of the Bush administration in order to exempt it from a presidential order regulating federal agencies' handling of classified national security information, officials said Thursday.

Cheney has held that his office is not fully part of the executive branch of government despite the continued objections of the National Archives, which says his office's failure to demonstrate that it has proper security safeguards in place could jeopardize the government's top secrets.

Executive privilege was later invoked to shield Cheney from subpoenas.

I wouldn't have voted for Kennedy - I'm not from Mass.

How does that put him in the do as I say, not as I do group?
Al Gore, we're all gonna die, make your carbon footprint smaller so I can have a bigger one.
Michael Moore, capitalism is bad, yet I'll sue those greedy SOB to get moore money.
Bill Clinton, I did not have sex with that woman.......
Warren Buffet, raise my taxes since I don't pay them anyway.

Now Cheney may fall into another group, but I wouldn't put him into the Do as I say, not as I do.

I read that story.....I was suprised, I always thought it was just a regular accident ans some lady had died.  I didn't realize the details.  I did find a theory that blames Bush......really the Sr. one.  I'm starting to think libs will start blaming bush for the disappearence of the dino's.

Well how about adding him for being a draft dodger and starting a war?

>>I'm starting to think libs will start blaming bush for the disappearence of the dino's.

Follow the money - didn't he and his family make a lot from oil?  ;-)

I don't know about being a draft dodger, I thought that was Clinton.  But I don't agree with Iraq.  I didn't agree when we went there and I still don't think we should have gone, but I think personaly, we were going regardless of who was in office.  My big hang up is Clinton, she was fed the same intel and still voted to go.  You can say the changed the intel, but I don't see them being that short sighted.  Hey let's lie our way into this war and maybe everyone will forget about WMD's.  I just don't think that happened.

It wasn't just the WMD's, they alleged that Saddam had a direct connection to 9/11, which was completely manufactured BS.

Quite frankly, I would have done the same thing as Cheney (if I wasn't 9 at the time). The difference between the Veep and me is that I wouldn't have the temerity to criticize someone who not only served in Viet Nam, but was wounded three times and won several honors for courage and bravery.
 
That would simply be hypocritical.
 
Cheney apparently has no such restraints. Of the American involvement in Vietnam, Dick Cheney was asked: "Was it a noble cause?
 
His answer: "Yes, indeed, I think it was."
 
Just not for him . . .

http://www.rense.com/general52/chenn.htm

>which was completely manufactured BS.

Please prove that? How do you know it was manufactured?

Because Bush said it.  

>>Please prove that? How do you know it was manufactured?

Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda link allegations were made by U.S. Government officials who claimed that a highly secretive relationship existed between former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and the radical Islamist militant organization Al-Qaeda from 1992 to 2003, specifically through a series of meetings reportedly involving the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS).[1] In the lead up to the Iraq War, U.S. President George W. Bush alleged that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and militant group al-Qaeda might conspire to launch terrorist attacks on the United States,[2] basing the administration's rationale for war, in part, on this allegation and others. The consensus of intelligence experts has been that these contacts never led to an operational relationship, and that consensus is backed up by reports from the independent 9/11 Commission and by declassified Defense Department reports[3] as well as by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, whose 2006 report of Phase II of its investigation into prewar intelligence reports concluded that there was no evidence of ties between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda.[4] Critics of the Bush Administration have said Bush was intentionally building a case for war with Iraq without regard to factual evidence. On April 29, 2007, former Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet said on 60 Minutes, "We could never verify that there was any Iraqi authority, direction and control, complicity with al-Qaeda for 9/11 or any operational act against America, period."[5]

Of course, it could all be a liberal conspiracy involving the CIA, DOD, and independent 9/11 Commission?  OR, like I said, MANUFACTURED BS.

>The consensus of intelligence experts has been that these contacts never led to an operational relationship

Hind sight is always 20/20, that does not make it MANUFACTURED.

It better be MANUFACTURED, or our INTELLIGENCE should just be renamed SPECULATION.

Have we determined fair share yet?