Bill UCONN: Excellent comparison. I like the way you put it into perspective to make the comparison more visible.

N2S said, Really??? How, pray do tell?

N2S, If you are, truly, "crazier than a shithouse rat", then call me "Feivel", 'cause I do agree with you about one thing; this corporate welfare nonsense has got to stop. Flys right in the face of true capitalism, and smacks of Facism. i.e. government subsidy of private enterprise.

However, this class envy, hatred of the rich/tax the rich silliness must be reigned in. It is a symptom of the death knell of democracy DeTouqville warned us about. When the masses, i.e. the "poor", realize they can vote themselves money, via taxation of the "rich", we tread the slipperary slope to ruination. What shall we do when the producers of society simply refuse to produce, i.e. labor, for the "great unwashed"?

As citizens, we should all share/bear the burdens and sacrifices, of the cost of our society, and its services. When the tax code exempts so many people from any real tax burden, (the Earned Income Tax Credit is a perfect example of this), the aforementioned have nothing to lose, and everything to gain, by demanding increased social spending! Hence, expenditures rise, and, eventually, revenues decrease. It never ceases to amaze me that people getting a free ride in the boat feel they have the unadultrated right to tell me to row faster!

There are ancedotal examples of this. In the early '70's, Sweden, in its rush to Utopian socialism, had an oppressive tax rate into the 90 percentile for incomes over $50,000 per annum. It was found, after about the 1st 4 months each year, that their were few doctors to be found in the country practising. Seems they had nothing to gain by working 12 months. When they reached the virtually confiscatory tax limit, they packed up, and went to Spain for extended holiday! (Dirt cheap, at that time.) Eventually, the Swedish parliament came to its senses, and lowered the tax rates, und, viola, the doctors were back.

While the tax structures of the European Union, and the US differ to a great degree, (The Europeans do not, generally, have the extra burdern of State and local obligations, as we do,), there is a lesson to be learned by this parable. At what point, will the "rich" say "enough is enough"?

It has, I can argue, already started. Capital is leaving the country, and is part of the myriad of reasons of out-sourcing. Within certain parameters, it is totally legal, and has some tax advantages.

Go ahead, Dems, make your day, raise the "rich's" taxes, again. My guess is this will merely expedite the outward shift of capital. Good enough for Heinz; good enough for others! Costa Rica is absolutely lovely, any time of year!

 Quote:

Originally posted by Henry L.:

QB]

 Quote:

Spin: That is the second or third time you have accused me of "making something up." Whenever I do cite a web site or book source you say nothing. Whenever I post something from hearsay, or from something I read at one point, or just something I believe in, I can't cite it. Instead of claiming I am making it up, why not just challenge it?

Henry, you just stated that I “say nothing” when you site a book and I don’t challenge it. Sorry Henry, the below post from October 5, 2004, at 11:41 PM is proof that I have challenged your sources. You remember, don’t you, you stated the Iraqi’s didn’t get chemical weapons material from the US, that were used in the 1988 attacks against the Kurds, your source was from 1984? (how Orwellian), my source, with link, disproved your argument.


QUOTE]Originally posted by spin:

 Quote:

Originally posted by Henry L.:
[qb] SO...just to be sure that what I stated earlier was correct, I didn't find exactly what I was looking for but it was close. I dug out a Book titled The Middle East: Ninth Edition congressional Quarterly (2000) and started skimimg the chronolgy in the back and here is what I found:

March 5, 1984: The United States accusses and condemns Iraq of using chemical weapons in its war against Iran. The Red Cross (March7) supports the US claim after examing Iranian victims.

Henry, March 5, 1984?? Iraq gassed the Kurds in March 1988. The chemicals we sold them were used against the Kurds in 1988. Better go back and recheck your sources. Maybe this will help:

How America armed Iraq

UNDER the successive presidencies of Ronald Reagan and George Bush, the USA sold nuclear, chemical and biological weapons technology to Saddam Hussein.

http://www.sundayherald.com/42647 [/QUOTE]

Henry, And again I ask you, “it has been speculated” by WHOM.

Don't ya just love it when people answer their own questions!?

In all fairness, "FIEVEL!" , that is just a part of it, but a really BIG part of it, to be sure! I understand your concern with what I am suggesting. I fully realize the slippery slope and the risk involved with what I am suggesting. But in typical right wing fashion you are taking what I am suggesting out to it's worst case scenario.

I realize that, just like on virtually every other issue, there is a delicate balance to be achieved and maintained. However, I wish you all would stop accusing me of hating the wealthy and trying to take away ALL of their hard earned money! I am suggesting NOTHING of the kind! AND I DON'T HATE ANYONE! HONEST! (Except Ann Coulter! :p )

I don't hate the wealthy, nor do I blame them for operating within the existing laws and framework. I don't expect them to charge the Capitol, bags of money in hand, and say, "Please, take this, the country needs it more than we do! " :rolleyes:

And like I said a long time ago on this thread, I value capitalism and our free, open market economy. All I am suggesting is balancing the tax burden more equitably, as a percentage of tax payers' gross annual income, taking into account all sources of income, and making sure that the tax on income is a progressive one, which increases as one's income does, or at the very least a flat tax. I have also said, on this thread, that I would support a flat tax; what could be more fair than that?

I am not advocating, "Take from the rich, GIVE to the poor." I am suggesting we can do better, and that the wealthy can afford far more than we tax them now. I'm sorry if some really wealthy guy might have to sell his villa in Maui ; TOUGH!

I am suggesting that if we, jeez, I'm afraid to even utter these taboo words, raised the taxes on the wealthy, a relatively small amount, really, we could do so much more for so many and all be better for it in the long run. And I am NOT one of the ones looking to gain anything in the way of handouts or assistance for myself! I have said THAT on this thread, too!

We are so screwed with deficits, and the war, and such, that we can't do what I envision now anyway, but what I envision is using the increased tax revenue (gained from doing away with corporate welfare, tax loopholes, etc., combined with a measured and reasonable tax increase on the very wealthy and corporations) to increase spending on healthcare for everyone; education for everyone, (especially education, inlcuding higher education, education is THE KEY!); housing and food for everyone; job training and job opportunity for everyone; so that everyone has a better and truly more equal opportunity to invest in our system.

We INVEST! in our childrens' and our futures, by truly providing for and educating our future generations, so that we eliminate poverty and the need for social handouts and entitlements, get everyone working and contributing to our country and paying in to that tax base. Again, I know the argument that comes next, and recognize the risk, and realize that we have failed with social programs in the past and that we must guard against abuses.

What all you conservatives are going to say next is, if we start giving out handouts in the way of housing, healthcare, and food, we teach the lazy people that they can get something for doing nothing and we create a culture of needy and a system of entitlements. That's why I said, a long time ago, on this thread, that we put a floor on the house, not a ceiling.

We provide a minimum standard of living, and one better than the bottom we have now. Yes, some may very well decide that is good enough for them, they won't work harder and try to get ahead. But we can build in bench marks, and waypoints, and require that they do certain things, that certain things be accomplished within certain time periods to qualify for certain benefits received: like requiring that benefit recipients finish high school or earn GED's; or requiring them to choose between taking advantage of opportunities we provide for higher education, or job training programs, or military service; in order to continue to receive certain assistance. But again, there should be a certain minimum standard of living, and it should be humane and reasonable, and yes, some are going to be satisfied with that and be complacent.

But how many people, really, as a percentage of our citizenry, when provided genuine opportunity, a chance at meaningful gains and improvements in their standard of living, with real HOPE! will not choose to take advantage of that opportunity and to do better for themselves? Not too many, I think! Ultimately, we all want the same things. But so many of our citizens have no hope, they have given up. We've made it too hard, and not worth the effort for SOME of them.

And please, spare me the stories of immigrants, and depressions, and WWII, :rolleyes: I know all of that; I have parents, and aunts and uncles, and grandparents, too! My father grew up in Texas, born in 1938, sharecropping and dirt farming, very poor my grandparents, barefoot until he was 6, and only then cuz he had to wear shoes to school, joined the Army in 1957, got married in 1960, raised a family, we lived bare bones, he worked his butt off, factories, multiple low paying jobs, my parents bought a house, I went to college for 2 years, no one paid for me, I paid for it myself, I quit school and got married and raised 3 kids, yeah, my fiance got pregnant while we were in college, so what? I did the right thing, we got married, I went to work, 23 years later we're still married, she went back to school, we both have good jobs, our kids are great, and we own a house, and are living better than at least 70% of the rest.

But this is a different day and age, and there are alot more of us! EVERYTHING IS DIFFERENT!! And there is just SO MUCH obscene, extravagent, unnecessary, opulence, and extreme wealth out there! WE CAN DO BETTER!

I know I am describing Utopia, I know I'm envisioning a perfect society, with perfect people, who do what they are supposed to, who do the right thing, who take advantage of opportunities and work hard. I realize it won't all work exactly that way. Does that mean we shouldn't even TRY!?

You know, it's interesting, throughout this thread, every time I have suggested, we can do better, we can afford more, we can help the poor rise above, we can eliminate poverty and it will make us all better in the long run- the response from the right is "It could be alot worse" "This is the best country in the world" "All you have to do is work hard and get an education and you'll succeed" "If they don't like it why don't they go back where they came from" "The poor in other countries wish they lived as well as our poor"........

Is that what this is all about? How much worse it could be? How far we can sink and still be better than everyone else? I offer a vision of hope and optimism and of ways to improve the lives of our poor, and there are ALOT of them, alot more than the rich, and alot more than those of us in the middle, and ultimately improve the lives of all of us, and all any of you can say is, "We like it the way it is, it could be alot worse, leave us and our money alone." "We climbed the ladder ourselves, we don't want to throw down a rope to help others climb it, IT'S OUR ROPE, WE PAID FOR IT OURSELVES WITH THE MONEY WE EARNED WITH OUR HARD WORK! We don't HAVE to help them up!"

Do you? Do you really like it the way it is? Is it good enough just because it's better than anywhere else, just because it could be alot worse?

In the wise words of Dr. Phil, "HOW'S THAT WORKIN' FOR YA?!"

Middle Class Said To Pay Higher Tax Rate Than Heinz Kerry And Kerry
Mon Oct 11 2004 10:22:17 ET

Stephen Moore, president of the Club for Growth, writes in the WALL STREET JOURNAL on Monday: "According to the Kerrys' own tax records, and they have not released all of them, the couple had a combined income of $6.8 million in income last year and paid $725,000 in income taxes. That means their effective tax rate was a whopping 12.8%.... "Under the current tax system the middle class pays far more than the Kerry tax rate. In fact, the average federal tax rate -- combined payroll and income tax -- for a middle-class family is closer to 20% or more. George W. and Laura Bush, who had an income one- tenth of the Kerrys', paid a tax rate of 30%. ...

"Here is the man who finds clever ways to reduce his own tax liability while voting for higher taxes on the middle class dozens of times in his Senate career. He even voted against the Bush tax cut that saves each middle-class family about $1,000." The Kerrys "have unwittingly made the case for what George W. Bush says he wants to do: radically simplify and flatten out the tax code. ... So before John Kerry is given the opportunity to raise taxes again on American workers, shouldn't he and Teresa at least pay their fair share?"