Why Democrats Consistently Fail

[IntheNet]

On topic (http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/welcome.cgi):

On Clinton:
"... the horny hick's wife finally ended the breathless anticipation by announcing that she is running for president. I studied tapes of Hillary feigning surprise at hearing about Monica to help me look surprised upon learning that she's running... But the most urgent question surrounding Hillary's candidacy is: How will the Democrats out-macho us if Hillary is their presidential nominee? Unlike their last presidential nominee, she doesn't even have any fake Purple Hearts."

On Obama
"Still and all, Mrs. Clinton is probably the real front-runner based on: (1) the multiple millions of dollars she has raised, and (2) the fact that her leading Democratic opponent is named "Barack Hussein Obama." Or, as he's known at CNN, "Osama." Or, as he's known on the Clinton campaign, "The Soft Bigotry of Low Expectations."

On Webb:
"Sen. Jim Webb, who managed to give the rebuttal to President Bush's State of the Union address Tuesday night without challenging the president to a fistfight (well done, Jim!), won his election last November by portraying himself as one of the new gun-totin' Democrats. He once opposed women in the military by calling the idea "a horny woman's dream." But — as some of us warned you — it appears that Webb has already been fitted for his tutu by Rahm Emanuel. Webb began his rebuttal by complaining that we don't have national health care and aren't spending enough on "education" (teachers unions). In other words, he talked about national issues that only are national issues because of this country's rash experiment with women's suffrage. I guess we should all be relieved that at least Webb's response did not involve putting a young boy's ***** into a man's mouth, as characters in his novels are wont to do. He then palavered on about the vast military experience of his entire family in order to better denounce the war in Iraq. As long as Democrats keep insisting that only warriors can discuss war, how about telling the chick to butt out?"

I love her! She has such a way with wit...

[Jaguar Rick]

On topic (http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/welcome.cgi):

On Clinton:
"... the horny hick's wife finally ended the breathless anticipation by announcing that she is running for president. I studied tapes of Hillary feigning surprise at hearing about Monica to help me look surprised upon learning that she's running... But the most urgent question surrounding Hillary's candidacy is: How will the Democrats out-macho us if Hillary is their presidential nominee? Unlike their last presidential nominee, she doesn't even have any fake Purple Hearts."

On Obama
"Still and all, Mrs. Clinton is probably the real front-runner based on: (1) the multiple millions of dollars she has raised, and (2) the fact that her leading Democratic opponent is named "Barack Hussein Obama." Or, as he's known at CNN, "Osama." Or, as he's known on the Clinton campaign, "The Soft Bigotry of Low Expectations."

On Webb:
"Sen. Jim Webb, who managed to give the rebuttal to President Bush's State of the Union address Tuesday night without challenging the president to a fistfight (well done, Jim!), won his election last November by portraying himself as one of the new gun-totin' Democrats. He once opposed women in the military by calling the idea "a horny woman's dream." But — as some of us warned you — it appears that Webb has already been fitted for his tutu by Rahm Emanuel. Webb began his rebuttal by complaining that we don't have national health care and aren't spending enough on "education" (teachers unions). In other words, he talked about national issues that only are national issues because of this country's rash experiment with women's suffrage. I guess we should all be relieved that at least Webb's response did not involve putting a young boy's ***** into a man's mouth, as characters in his novels are wont to do. He then palavered on about the vast military experience of his entire family in order to better denounce the war in Iraq. As long as Democrats keep insisting that only warriors can discuss war, how about telling the chick to butt out?"

I love her! She has such a way with wit...


IntheNet, How many Purple Hearts do Bush and Cheney have? Bush deserted his post in the Texas..er..Alabama ANG, so I guess he isn't eligible. Cheney said he didn't have time to serve, so he isn't eligible, gosh is anyone in the Bush Cabinet recipients? Let's see how about Limbaugh, no; Bill O'Reilly, no again. It seems all the accusers of any reknown have never served. It is so easy to call one's decorations fake, but that speaks loudly of the accusers. I have a Purple Heart too, but nobody accused me of faking it. Detmurds is going to be mad at you for accusing a Navy man of faking wounds.
I have to give it to you, you make a great Republican. You stay the course, and continue their never-ending program of dis-information. Nixon would be proud. I really have no hard feelings against anyone who hasn't been in the service. What irks me to no end is the Chicken Hawks that constantly belittle the achievements of those who did, and the ones who served and exaggerate their duties and accomplishments.

[DETMURDS]

One thing I have never heard from the Dems is what plan they have on anything. I mean they say a lot of flowery stuff that people want to hear, but NEVER follow through. The last Dem that did was JF Kennedy. Carter turned Iran against the Shaw, and we suffered with the hostage crisis until they seen big RR take office and they were released that very day of Ronnie being sworn in. Then Clinton, a popular president because he was a "common" citizen who broke laws and went against moral desicions. But when you think about it, Reagan, and Bush Sr set Clinton up for success, so Clinton didn't do anything but go to court and lie for cheating on his wife.

Hey, oral sex isn't sex? GET REAL!

[Jaguar Rick]

No plan is better than a terrible plan. If Bush's policies are considered "plans". Are we to say the World is swirling down the toilet, but at least we had a plan? A plan for what? Capturing or killing the real instigator of 9-11, Bin Laden? Haven't heard him mentioned lately. How about an energy plan? Haven't seen one, only mentioned in the 6th State of the Union speech. A tax simplification plan? Haven't seen it. Global Climate Change Participation? Nah. Educational reform? Nah. Election law reform-nah, the Republicans have fought that like the plague. We did see some attempts at things almost every American stays awake thinking about though-Same sex marriage, anti-flag desecration, pro-gerry-mandering of Congressional districts, real important stuff. We also sold our soul to the Big Drug companies-promised not to negotiate prices for Medicare, got to help our friends in the drug industry. No-bid contracts to Halliburton in Iraq, and billions squandered on re-building Iraq after spending billions to destroy it. Now Bush proposes taxing health care benefits, and giving tax breaks to people with no benefits. Where is the outrage from our conservative friends on this? Yeah, you are right. The Republicans have a plan alright, a plan for selling-out our country to special interests.

[DETMURDS]

No plan is better than a terrible plan. If Bush's policies are considered "plans". Are we to say the World is swirling down the toilet, but at least we had a plan? A plan for what? Capturing or killing the real instigator of 9-11, Bin Laden? Haven't heard him mentioned lately. How about an energy plan? Haven't seen one, only mentioned in the 6th State of the Union speech. A tax simplification plan? Haven't seen it. Global Climate Change Participation? Nah. Educational reform? Nah. Election law reform-nah, the Republicans have fought that like the plague. We did see some attempts at things almost every American stays awake thinking about though-Same sex marriage, anti-flag desecration, pro-gerry-mandering of Congressional districts, real important stuff. We also sold our soul to the Big Drug companies-promised not to negotiate prices for Medicare, got to help our friends in the drug industry. No-bid contracts to Halliburton in Iraq, and billions squandered on re-building Iraq after spending billions to destroy it. Now Bush proposes taxing health care benefits, and giving tax breaks to people with no benefits. Where is the outrage from our conservative friends on this? Yeah, you are right. The Republicans have a plan alright, a plan for selling-out our country to special interests.

Your world may be in the toilet, ...not mine. Global Climate Change? In the seventies, scientists said we were going into "Global Cooling", and they had proof of that as well. It was on the front cover of the left wing TIME Magazine! Halliburon? Oh,...Mike Moore invested in that company too,...the same idiot that you got this false info from when you went to Blockbuster Video and rented his UNTRUE documentary.

[catman]

I have a question for you Rick. Who are Halliburton's competitors in this area?

[Jaguar Rick]

I have a question for you Rick. Who are Halliburton's competitors in this area?

Bechtel
Schlumberger
Technip
Cudd Pressure Control
Rocky Mountain Energy
Boots and Coots
Wild Fire Control
Safety Boss

Halliburton will most probably sub contract one or more of these companies to put out oil fires. (Other than Bechtel) Halliburton is being paid to put out fires, even is no fires occur.

As for the supply of commisary, food, laundry and other needs, too many companies to list. (No other company ever had a chance to bid!)

[catman]

I thought Bechtel was a subsidiary of Halliburton, but I appreciate your response.
Would the other companies be able to handle jobs of this size and scope as quickly as Halliburton can?

[Jaguar Rick]

I thought Bechtel was a subsidiary of Halliburton, but I appreciate your response.
Would the other companies be able to handle jobs of this size and scope as quickly as Halliburton can?

catman, You are probably thinking of Kellogg, Brown and Root (KBR). They are a subsidiary of Halliburton. I'm not sure that Halliburton can fight well fires itself. The biggest are Boots and Coots and International Well. Red Adair, a reknown well firefighter died, but I think his company lives on.
There are many companies able to handle these, and many other jobs if given the opportunity.

[Jaguar Rick]

Here are some of the things going on with Halliburton in Iraq:

The U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is investigating allegations that the Army Corp of Engineers illegally favored Halliburton for contracts by excluding competitors from bidding on war-related work. In particular, the FBI is investigating the Army's $7 billion firefighting contract for Iraqi oil wells, which was awarded to Halliburton without competition in March of 2003. An Army whistleblower told the FBI that the line between government officials and Halliburton had become so blurred that a perception of conflict of interest existed. The conduct appears to have violated specific regulations and calls into question the independence of the contracting process.


The Pentagon admitted that a $7 billion no-bid contract to extinguish oil fires in Iraq was awarded to Halliburton after a "political appointee" from the Bush administration recommended the company for the job. Government policy forbids politicians or their appointees from taking a role in awarding contracts to private corporations. But Vice President Cheney ignored this basic principle when his political appointees were directly involved in awarding a $7 billion contract to Halliburton to rebuild Iraq's oil infrastructure.


The U.S. Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is investigating the legality of Halliburton's business dealings in Iran, an enemy of the United States. Halliburton sells goods and services to Iranian companies through its Cayman Islands subsidiary. The sales appear to have violated the U.S. trade embargo against trading with Iran. The OFAC referred the case to the Department of Justice, which is conducting a criminal investigation.


The Criminal Division of the U.S. Department of Justice issued a subpoena to a former employee of Halliburton's KBR unit to determine whether the company criminally overcharged for gasoline imported into Iraq. KBR, along with its Kuwaiti subcontractor Altanmia Commercial Marketing Co., allegedly overcharged the government by $61 million, but Democrats in Congress say the overcharges were closer to $167 million. KBR charged the government $2.64 per gallon of gasoline while competitors were importing gasoline for less than half that price.


Four former employees of Halliburton filed a class action lawsuit against their former employer, alleging the company engaged in "systemic" accounting fraud from 1998 to 2001. The former employees say Halliburton overbilled for services, overstated the amounts it was owed by customers and understated amounts it owed to vendors. A former employee in the accounting department said supervisors had told her to do "whatever it took" to make profit statements appear more profitable than was actually the case.


The U.S. Department of Defense is investigating Halliburton's billing system, which it calls "inadequate." Pentagon accountants said they are uncertain as to why Halliburton's KBR unit billed the government for $1.8 billion in work that was apparently never undertaken or completed. The $1.8 billion represents 43 percent of Halliburton's expenditures in the Middle East.


Congressional auditors issued a report that criticized Halliburton for a variety of abuses associated with its troop support and military logistics (LOGCAP) contract. It also criticized the Pentagon for “a pattern of contractor management problems,” including ineffective planning, a poor materials requisition system and inadequate supervision of subcontractors.


The Pentagon's Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) completed a comprehensive review of Halliburton's system for billing the government for meals served to the troops in the Middle East. The DCAA said Halliburton billed the government for 36 percent more meals than was actually served to the troops while an internal KBR report said it had overcharged by 19 percent. In May 2004, the DCAA recommended that the Pentagon refuse to pay Halliburton for the overcharges.


An investigation by the inspector general of the now-disbanded U.S. Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) found that Halliburton lost $18.6 million worth of government property in Iraq because of mismanagement. About a third of the government items under Halliburton management in Iraq, including trucks, computers and office furniture have disappeared.


The U.S. Justice Department is investigating Halliburton for possible over billing on government services work done in the Balkans from 1996 through 2000. The charges stem from a General Accounting Office report that found in 1997 that Halliburton billed the Army for questionable expenses for work in the Balkans, including charges of $85.98 per sheet of plywood that cost $14.06. A follow-up report by the GAO in 2000 found inflated costs, including charges for cleaning some offices up to four times a day.


The Army awarded Halliburton a no-bid contract in March 2003 despite a secret Pentagon report which found the company had "significant deficiencies" that could lead to defrauding the government. The Pentagon's report was given to Hearst News Service under the Freedom of Information Act over Halliburton's objections.


The Department of Defense repeatedly warned Halliburton's subsidiary, KBR, that its food and the kitchens where it is prepared are "dirty," NBC News reported. A Pentagon report found that KBR's promises to clean up its food and kitchens "have not been followed through."


The Kuwaiti government has delayed completion of a report on its investigation of the $61 million gasoline overcharge by KBR and its subcontractor, Altanmia. The U.S. embassy in Kuwait publicly stated it will not cooperate with the Kuwaiti government's investigation. Kuwait said its investigation is delayed because the U.S. Army refuses to testify.


The inspector general for the U.S. Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) found that the United States failed to adequately control over $9 billion in international aid, including Halliburton's hotel costs in Kuwait. Halliburton charged the government $2.85 million for hotel costs, even though cheaper housing arrangements were available. For example, one CPA official lived at the Kuwaiti Hilton for almost $700 a night. The inspector general also criticized Halliburton for charging $191,000 a year for laundry services.

[catman]

How long have the "no-bid" contracts been going on?

[RavenPoe]

NAFTA
GATT
The Welfare Reform Act
The Family Leave Act
Don't Ask Don't Tell
Balanced Budget that resulted in surpluses
Reduced the size of government more than any Republican. ever

Yeah, Bill Clinton did nothing.

Carter turned the Iran against the Shaw? What a joke. The hostages were released the day Reagan took office because that's the deal they made. Now we'll end up fighting those stinger missiles that Reagan the liar sold to Iran.

BTW, what has your boy Georgie done but start a war and polarize the entire nation?

[catman]

How many union people like NAFTA and GATT? Both have allegedly cost American jobs.
As to the Welfare Reform Act, why does it need to be revisited every couple of years if that was so great?

[RavenPoe]

Now that's what I like! "Clinton did nothing." But as soon as someone points out all that he did it turns into "Clinton's policies sucked". Flip-flop much?

[catman]

Mr. Clinton did not do anything of substance to move the country forward. Those ideas were, and always will be, Republican ideas, requiring a Republican majority in both Houses of Congress to pass. Would any of them make it through this Congress? I doubt it.
I do not flip-flop. When you have no answer to a point I make, you resort to tactics of this nature. It does not become you, RavenPoe.
If that is "all" Mr. Clinton did, my point is made. He did nothing substantive to move the country forward.

[catman]

By the way, it was Mr. Clinton that further polarized the nation. The nation has been polarized since Reagan was President. Unfortunately, Bush has not been able to repair that damage.

[catman]

As to Ms. Coulter, I have not read her books, nor do I plan to. She looks to me to be one that likes to stir things up, just because she can. I do not approve of the discriptive terms she uses for Mr. Clinton. I was one of the most vocal critics of his inaction when he was in office, but had the situation come up, I would have defended him with my life.

[RavenPoe]

Mr. Clinton did not do anything of substance to move the country forward. Those ideas were, and always will be, Republican ideas, requiring a Republican majority in both Houses of Congress to pass. Would any of them make it through this Congress? I doubt it.
I do not flip-flop. When you have no answer to a point I make, you resort to tactics of this nature. It does not become you, RavenPoe.
If that is "all" Mr. Clinton did, my point is made. He did nothing substantive to move the country forward.

Oh, I see! So when you say "Clinton did nothing" you really mean "Clinton did nothing {of substance}". Nice try, Catman. I'm not falling for that and neither is anyone else.

The reason that Clinton is so hated by Republicans is BECAUSE he dissected the "Contract with America" and reworked a few of the bills to protect the working class. That Republican congress had no choice but to pass those bills or they would have looked like fools, they were their own bills. Clinton bested your best at every turn and that's why you hate him. I realize that you won't admit it but it's really transparent like most Republican rhetoric.

[Jaguar Rick]

How long have the "no-bid" contracts been going on?

I believe the ones pertaining to the Iraq war were given in early 2003.

[catman]

I do not hate Mr. Clinton. How can one hate someone that did nothing to move the country forward. During his 8 year occupation of the White House, the country stagnated. The economic recovery Reagan and Bush created stalled out. The Defense Department and US Military were gutted. Social Security was not saved, although he claimed to have done so several times. Welfare was reformed, but that reform has had to be re-worked since he moved to New York.
Sorry RavenPoe, but Mr. Clinton did not do the miracles you think he did.
I will repeat. I do not hate Mr. Clinton. I pity him.

[catman]

I believe the ones pertaining to the Iraq war were given in early 2003.

My question is "when did the no-bid contracts begin", not when these specific contracts were given.

[RavenPoe]

I do not hate Mr. Clinton. How can one hate someone that did nothing to move the country forward. During his 8 year occupation of the White House, the country stagnated. The economic recovery Reagan and Bush created stalled out. The Defense Department and US Military were gutted. Social Security was not saved, although he claimed to have done so several times. Welfare was reformed, but that reform has had to be re-worked since he moved to New York.
Sorry RavenPoe, but Mr. Clinton did not do the miracles you think he did.
I will repeat. I do not hate Mr. Clinton. I pity him.

Thank you for some more transparent Republican rhetoric. Now how about citing the reasons that balancing the budget and cutting Reagan's bloated military didn't move the country forward? How about the Family Leave Act that King George the first (read my lips) vetoed just before leaving office? Was that a Republican bill?

Reagan's economic recovery? You can't possibly be that deluded can you? There was this little event in 87 referred to as the biggest stock market crash in the history of public corporations, remember that? Clinton rescued the economy by balancing the budget while simultaneously cutting taxes on lower and middle class WORKING Americans allowing them to spend more money. Were you overseas during the 90's? Maybe you missed the best economy this country has seen since the 1920's. What was the term that America had forgotten during 12 years of Republicanism? Was it a Bull Market?

[Jaguar Rick]

My question is "when did the no-bid contracts begin", not when these specific contracts were given.

Sorry catman, I don't understand your question. The only no-bid contracts I referred to were the Halliburton no-bid contracts in Iraq. I posted just some of the allegations against these contracts by a non-partisan group that reports on investigations and reports from branches of the government. I believe Bechtel has filed suit on this matter also.

[catman]

Rick, I believe the "no-bid" contracts started during Mr. Clinton's occupation of the White House.
RavenPoe, if one of us is deluded, I suggest it is the man looking at you in the mirror each morning.
Mr Clinton did nothing to aid the economy, in fact, had it not been for his huge tax increase of 1993, it is likely the budget would have been balanced by 1995 or 96 (a nice way to go into election year, wouldn't you think?).
Sorry, but until you show me something that moves the country forward from Mr. Clinton, I'll continue to say he did nothing substantive in his administration.
By the way, isn't it interesting that Joe Lieberman is considering changing parties? I guess that means the Democratic "majority" in the Senate may not be as solid as they want it to be.
I hope the Democratic leadership does more than they did the last time they controlled any of the branches of Government. Remember what happened to Mr. Daschle? If this Congress plays "human-roadblock" and does not allow any of the President's domestic agenda to be passed, I fear this "majority" will be short-lived as the last one was.
RavenPoe, perhaps you should stick to poetry. I would read that and appreciate it. Your posts are simply not that interesting, as they are full of speculation and inuendo and short on facts.

[RavenPoe]

Rick, I believe the "no-bid" contracts started during Mr. Clinton's occupation of the White House.
RavenPoe, if one of us is deluded, I suggest it is the man looking at you in the mirror each morning.
Mr Clinton did nothing to aid the economy, in fact, had it not been for his huge tax increase of 1993, it is likely the budget would have been balanced by 1995 or 96 (a nice way to go into election year, wouldn't you think?).
Sorry, but until you show me something that moves the country forward from Mr. Clinton, I'll continue to say he did nothing substantive in his administration.
By the way, isn't it interesting that Joe Lieberman is considering changing parties? I guess that means the Democratic "majority" in the Senate may not be as solid as they want it to be.
I hope the Democratic leadership does more than they did the last time they controlled any of the branches of Government. Remember what happened to Mr. Daschle? If this Congress plays "human-roadblock" and does not allow any of the President's domestic agenda to be passed, I fear this "majority" will be short-lived as the last one was.
RavenPoe, perhaps you should stick to poetry. I would read that and appreciate it. Your posts are simply not that interesting, as they are full of speculation and inuendo and short on facts.

I remember Tom Daschle very well. He was a weak minded fool who was too stupid to call out a lying white house administration. Do you remember the guy he took over for? I believe his name was Lott. lol Are you claiming a republican victory for that trade off? But yet it's me that's deluded, right? Maybe you should stick to baseball. At least there you know a little about what you're talking about.

BTW, Lieberman isn't a Democrat anymore, he ran independent. Which is good because he's just the kind of pond scum the Democratic party can do without. I'm glad the republicans like him, it shows their character or lack there of as it is. But with all that said, he plans to caucus with the Democrats so don't get your hopes up. Anyway, the Senate is useless without the house which we firmly control so no matter what your Texas dunce is a lame duck for his last two years. Hahahahahahahahaha

[IntheNet]

The only no-bid contracts I referred to were the Halliburton no-bid contracts in Iraq...

This is a tired old Democrat charge that they threw up hoping it would stick...

The reason for no-bid contracts going into Iraq to Haliburton was time and need; Time: proper bid-contracts take years to fully implement and wartime is no time to conduct a drawn-out Request For Proposal (RFP) soliciation process that would have delayed war footing. It should be stated that none of WWII government solicitations for war materials were bid contracts; that's right, in wartime government exercises its preference for prime bidder! Need: At the time of Iraq invasion, Haliburton was the only bidder qualified to provide support U.S. needed; as a multi-national corporation it uniquely offered the support sought and no other firm could equal its potential...

Questions? Haliburton (http://www.halliburton.com/) has addressed every one of the Democrats questions about their work and their status... I urge you to read a bit about they company... very professionally-run multi-national firm with truly dedicated people.

[Jaguar Rick]

This is a tired old Democrat charge that they threw up hoping it would stick...

The reason for no-bid contracts going into Iraq to Haliburton was time and need; Time: proper bid-contracts take years to fully implement and wartime is no time to conduct a drawn-out Request For Proposal (RFP) soliciation process that would have delayed war footing. It should be stated that none of WWII government solicitations for war materials were bid contracts; that's right, in wartime government exercises its preference for prime bidder! Need: At the time of Iraq invasion, Haliburton was the only bidder qualified to provide support U.S. needed; as a multi-national corporation it uniquely offered the support sought and no other firm could equal its potential...

Questions? Haliburton (http://www.halliburton.com/) has addressed every one of the Democrats questions about their work and their status... I urge you to read a bit about they company... very professionally-run multi-national firm with truly dedicated people.

IntheNet, I have read you are a Republican. That's fine. You have never heard, or read, that I am a Democrat. I've stated many times I don't like either party. It's not that the Democrats are so good, it's that the Republicans are so bad. Anytime somebody says something about the Bush administration, you counter it with something the Dems. did. Had you read the posts I made in reference to Halliburton, you would have read just some of the investigations and findings of corruption with fines. They have been and will remain the only contractor in Iraq not for their abilities, but because of their connections. You speak of the "no-bid" contracts during WWII. That was a declared war, and the production of many manufacturing plants was solely for the war effort. And, there were many of them, not just one. I think you will find it difficult to find an automobile manufactured during the war years. Every car company made vehicles for the gov't. Tanks, airplanes, ships, jeeps, etc. How can you compare the Iraq war with WWII???:confused:
I will read your link to Halliburton and it's attribution. I can bet it is written by Halliburton. If I am wrong, I'll write back and say so. To say that Halliburton is the only company able to do the work in Iraq is saying America is a weak country, having only one company with the ability to serve an entire country with a population less than that of California.

[CKFresh]

Rick, I believe the "no-bid" contracts started during Mr. Clinton's occupation of the White House.
RavenPoe, if one of us is deluded, I suggest it is the man looking at you in the mirror each morning.
Mr Clinton did nothing to aid the economy, in fact, had it not been for his huge tax increase of 1993, it is likely the budget would have been balanced by 1995 or 96 (a nice way to go into election year, wouldn't you think?).
Sorry, but until you show me something that moves the country forward from Mr. Clinton, I'll continue to say he did nothing substantive in his administration.
By the way, isn't it interesting that Joe Lieberman is considering changing parties? I guess that means the Democratic "majority" in the Senate may not be as solid as they want it to be.
I hope the Democratic leadership does more than they did the last time they controlled any of the branches of Government. Remember what happened to Mr. Daschle? If this Congress plays "human-roadblock" and does not allow any of the President's domestic agenda to be passed, I fear this "majority" will be short-lived as the last one was.
RavenPoe, perhaps you should stick to poetry. I would read that and appreciate it. Your posts are simply not that interesting, as they are full of speculation and inuendo and short on facts.

I wouldn't be so confident mr. catman. Take a look at your own party. People are jumping off like it's the Titanic. Sen. Hagel will be an independent if not Democrat by the end of the year, as well as many others. The Democratic party is the party of moderates and diversity of ideas. To be a republican, you have to fall into a very narrow set of ideas and beliefs. Soon, the open-minded republicans will realize they are not welcome in the party of christian fundamentalism and move over to the other side of the isle. For instance, when John McCain is once again destroyed by his own party when he tries to run for president, he will begin to lose faith in the party, same will Ruddolph G. The Republican party has been hijacked by the extreme Christian right, which is good in the short-term for winning elections due to their sheer numbers, but in time, the party will begin to distance itself from the mainstream (which it is already doing) and soon become near the fringe. When you have presidnetial candidates, like Huckabee from Arkansas, saying, "we need to take this country back for Christ!" and things along those lines, the majority of this country will become fearful of of becoming a theocracy. When this country sees that the republicans won't nominate moderates like McCain of Gulliani, they will grow tired of the extremists candidates the republicans are putting up there.

Unless the republicans establish some atonomy and independence from the religious right, they will fall further and further from the mainstream, and eventually become a fringe interest group.

[catman]

Well, the Democrats made a bit of a change in this last election cycle and made modest gains in both Houses. The "tradiditonal" Democrat is farther from the mainstream than the traditional Republican is.
I believe this cahnge is good for the country as a whole as the failed ideas of the past -- more welfare, higher spending on everything but defense, higher taxes, have gone for ever (hopefully).
As I have said many times, there are a lot of things I disagree with this President on. I do not approve of his education "reform". I want to allow more local control than his program does. I do not agree with his Social Security reform when the only real reform is increasing the amount of money I pay into it.
As to the next election cycle, it is not a certainty that the Democrats will win the White House, or hold their majorities in either House of Congress. They will have to do what their constituents sent them to Washington to do. Its about time someone holds Congress accountable for their actions -- or lack thereof.

[catman]

I remember Tom Daschle very well. He was a weak minded fool who was too stupid to call out a lying white house administration. Do you remember the guy he took over for? I believe his name was Lott. lol Are you claiming a republican victory for that trade off? But yet it's me that's deluded, right? Maybe you should stick to baseball. At least there you know a little about what you're talking about.

BTW, Lieberman isn't a Democrat anymore, he ran independent. Which is good because he's just the kind of pond scum the Democratic party can do without. I'm glad the republicans like him, it shows their character or lack there of as it is. But with all that said, he plans to caucus with the Democrats so don't get your hopes up. Anyway, the Senate is useless without the house which we firmly control so no matter what your Texas dunce is a lame duck for his last two years. Hahahahahahahahaha
In other words, this is just "party over country". What is good for the Democratic Party is the most important thing, right?
When did I say anything about Mr. Lott? I have little time for him, either.
As I have said, many politicians go into politics because they cannot find a real job. He, and Mr. Daschle, were in that category.
Laugh all you want, but if this Congress does not do what they were sent to Washington to do, the Democratic majority will be very short-lived.
And, by the way, there is plenty more "pond scum" in the Democratic Party. Another election cycle should remove more and, hopefully, it will be gone by 2012. Wave goodbye to Teddie, Mr. Kerry, etal.

[Jaguar Rick]

Rick, I believe the "no-bid" contracts started during Mr. Clinton's occupation of the White House.


catman, We have stated, and it's no secret, Halliburton go a no-bid contract with the current administration. You said you "believe no-bid contracts started in the Clinton administration". Would you please give the specifics? I would really like to know.
You have said some things about Poe that I don't think are correct. Many of us give sources, and many times links to the subjects of which we speak. Poe is one of the best at giving his sources. I notice that you and IntheNet, and others-don't. It is one thing to think you are right, but why badmouth those who can show proof or a reason for their position? Today IntheNet to "prove" a point concerning Halliburton, gave a link to the Halliburton homepage. That has to be the most ridiculous way I can imagine to prove anything. As if Halliburton was going to say, "because our former CEO is now the Vice-President, we have been awarded no-bid contracts in Iraq". I guess if IntheNet were shopping for a Ford, he would check out the Chevrolet website for info.:lol:

[CKFresh]

Well, the Democrats made a bit of a change in this last election cycle and made modest gains in both Houses. The "tradiditonal" Democrat is farther from the mainstream than the traditional Republican is.
I believe this cahnge is good for the country as a whole as the failed ideas of the past -- more welfare, higher spending on everything but defense, higher taxes, have gone for ever (hopefully).
As I have said many times, there are a lot of things I disagree with this President on. I do not approve of his education "reform". I want to allow more local control than his program does. I do not agree with his Social Security reform when the only real reform is increasing the amount of money I pay into it.
As to the next election cycle, it is not a certainty that the Democrats will win the White House, or hold their majorities in either House of Congress. They will have to do what their constituents sent them to Washington to do. Its about time someone holds Congress accountable for their actions -- or lack thereof.

I'm not sure how you can think for a second that the republicans are traditionally more mainstream than the democrats. The republicans are on the side of big business while the democrats are on the side of the common man. The republicans are on the side of a single religion, while the democrats don't discriminate against religions and accpet all religions. The republicans are anti-science and progress, while the democrats are for advancements in science.

If voters were more educated this country would be over-whelmingly democratic. That's not to say that republicans are not educated (for instance people like catman appear to be very intelligent, he is republican for selfish reasons I believe). But the democratic party DOES have the interests of the common working man in mind much more than the republicans. The republicans are just MUCH better at convincing the people otherwise. They use emotions and symbols much better to gain support. They USE 911 and the troops to envoke false patriotism and emotions. They use the church and ideas from the church much better to get the "one-issue" voters out much better than the democrats.

As I said, this is beginning to change because people are seeing how far outside the mainstream republicans really are.
Within the next 5 years you will see one of two things: a huge shift in ideas on the part of the republicans, or the overwhelming majority of democrats elected. If the republicans don't change their ways soon, they will be in big trouble because this country does not want an extreme christian group running this country.

[IntheNet]

Today IntheNet to "prove" a point concerning Halliburton, gave a link to the Halliburton homepage. That has to be the most ridiculous way I can imagine to prove anything.

:rolleyes:

Oh golly gee Rick... next time when I speak about Haliburton I'll be sure to link to the Mamma Sheehan Crybaby Liberal Leftist site or perhaps Democrat Underground as a more accurate way of getting the facts on Haliburton...

Okee Dokee?

[catman]

Democrats used to be on the side of the common man. They forgot the common man many years ago and went off on their tangents. They continue to pay lip service to the problems that the average Joe faces, but really don't care a whit about them.
The Republican Party seems (or seemed) more in tune with the average guy, wanting to decrease the tax burden on everyone, allowing for more economic growth in the country.
In the words of one of the esteemed Senators from South Carolina "There's too much consuming going on out there". If that is the attitude of the Democratic Party, it is likely they will not hold majorities in either house for long.
The current Democratic Party is more like the one I was a member of, rather than the one that was hijacked by ultra left wing.

[Jaguar Rick]

:rolleyes:

Oh golly gee Rick... next time when I speak about Haliburton I'll be sure to link to the Mamma Sheehan Crybaby Liberal Leftist site or perhaps Democrat Underground as a more accurate way of getting the facts on Haliburton...

Okee Dokee?


IntheNet, I have read your posts so often, and they are always the same. If you can't dazzle anyone with the facts, baffle them with b/s. The facts are something that mean nothing to you. You have a closed mind, and will never let the truth get in your way. What has Mama Sheehan have to do with Halliburton? Just your way of circumventing anything of value in any discussion. If you ever lose a child to a made-up war based on lies, perhaps you could identify with Ms Sheehan. Doesn't she have a right to oppose the war? Afterall, her son gave his life for the freedoms we enjoy. I guess her rights are only guaranteed if she thinks the same as you.
IntheNet, I do enjoy your posts. You stay the course, and will never let sane thoughts and a differing opinion deter you, even when you are proven wrong daily.

[CKFresh]

Democrats used to be on the side of the common man. They forgot the common man many years ago and went off on their tangents. They continue to pay lip service to the problems that the average Joe faces, but really don't care a whit about them.
The Republican Party seems (or seemed) more in tune with the average guy, wanting to decrease the tax burden on everyone, allowing for more economic growth in the country.
In the words of one of the esteemed Senators from South Carolina "There's too much consuming going on out there". If that is the attitude of the Democratic Party, it is likely they will not hold majorities in either house for long.
The current Democratic Party is more like the one I was a member of, rather than the one that was hijacked by ultra left wing.

Actually, the Democrats tax the "average joe" at the same rate as the Republicans. The Democrats wish to do away with tax cuts for the extremely wealthy, not the "average joe." The point is to tax those who "have" so that those who "have-not" can be relieved of this heavy tax burdon. Put the burdon on the rich so the poor can focus on survival.

What is or was so "ultra left wing" about the Democrats? I don't think they a liberal enough. There are no athiests, few gays, few people talking about the evironment, few people talking about any of the "liberal" issues. The liberals in this country have been demonized and are few and far between when it comes to politicians in this country.

[CKFresh]

IntheNet, I have read your posts so often, and they are always the same. If you can't dazzle anyone with the facts, baffle them with b/s. The facts are something that mean nothing to you. You have a closed mind, and will never let the truth get in your way. What has Mama Sheehan have to do with Halliburton? Just your way of circumventing anything of value in any discussion. If you ever lose a child to a made-up war based on lies, perhaps you could identify with Ms Sheehan. Doesn't she have a right to oppose the war? Afterall, her son gave his life for the freedoms we enjoy. I guess her rights are only guaranteed if she thinks the same as you.
IntheNet, I do enjoy your posts. You stay the course, and will never let sane thoughts and a differing opinion deter you, even when you are proven wrong daily.

Seriously Rick,
IntheNet is so bias and blind to the facts that NOTHING could happen to change his mind. debating facts with him isn't even any fun because it's too easy. Stick to the ideological arguments with him, at least he can argue opinion. When you get into matters of fact, the argument is over right away with him.

[IntheNet]

Actually, the Democrats tax the "average joe" at the same rate as the Republicans...

This is a lie...

And it is easily disproven...

Go find out who supported eliminating the Marriage Tax Penalty (The Tax Act of 2003)... Look at record of who voted against its elimination and who voted for maintaining it... SPLIT DOWN THE MIDDLE... Democrats wanted to maintain this tax on "average joe" Americans who married while Republicans wanted its elimination and prevailed!

You're wrong on this point CKFresh... but that's hardly surprising!

[catman]

How many people in this country pay no taxes under President Bush's tax program?
The top 5% of wage earners pay over 30% of the tax dollars to the Government and the bottom 50% pay about 5%. And you have the audacity to say that the tax cuts were for the rich only?
Nice try.
As to the marriage tax, I believe that is telling as to who is for the little guy and who is not.

[CKFresh]

How many people in this country pay no taxes under President Bush's tax program?
The top 5% of wage earners pay over 30% of the tax dollars to the Government and the bottom 50% pay about 5%. And you have the audacity to say that the tax cuts were for the rich only?
Nice try.

When did I say it was only for the rich? I said I want to get rid of the tax cuts for the rich. The tax cuts WERE for everyone, I want them to stay, just not for the rich. Don't put words in my mouth.

[CKFresh]

This is a lie...

And it is easily disproven...

Go find out who supported eliminating the Marriage Tax Penalty (The Tax Act of 2003)... Look at record of who voted against its elimination and who voted for maintaining it... SPLIT DOWN THE MIDDLE... Democrats wanted to maintain this tax on "average joe" Americans who married while Republicans wanted its elimination and prevailed!

You're wrong on this point CKFresh... but that's hardly surprising!


You find one example and that's proof? Often times bills are much more complicated than "raise taxes or lower taxes." There is a lot more that goes into a bill and the language of the bill may determine how a person or party votes. This tax may easily be offset by another form of tax break on the middle-class. You can't understand a parties idea based on one bill and you should know better IntheNet.

[catman]

The tax cuts were for everyone and discriminating against someone just because they make a lot of money is just as bad as discriminating against someone just because they are black. Should we tax people based on their race or gender?
I am in favor of a flatter tax rate, where people that consume the most pay the most -- like a national sales tax with no tax on income at all.

[IntheNet]

You find one example and that's proof?


Yeah it is!

You cite no proof for your statement:

"...the Democrats tax the "average joe" at the same rate as the Republicans..."

I cited proof... you cite lies!

[Jaguar Rick]

Seriously Rick,
IntheNet is so bias and blind to the facts that NOTHING could happen to change his mind. debating facts with him isn't even any fun because it's too easy. Stick to the ideological arguments with him, at least he can argue opinion. When you get into matters of fact, the argument is over right away with him.


Fresh, I agree buddy. There are none so blind as those who will not see. Maybe if we start arguing in biblically derived fashion he will understand. Nah, he reflects truth like Teflon. I think I'll start calling him the Teflon Don. Keep thinking fresh.:thumbup:

[CKFresh]

Yeah it is!

You cite no proof for your statement:

"...the Democrats tax the "average joe" at the same rate as the Republicans..."

I cited proof... you cite lies!

Once again, that's not a fact, it is a distortion. The bill is much more complex than you make it, that is not a lie. If the bill simply said, "raise taxes?" Then you would have a point. But it doesn't. There is more to bills than black and white. You just don't understand that because you have a small mind.

[catman]

What more is there to a tax bill than how much people are paying into the Government?
Sorry, but this is not sociology we are talking about. This is a problem with Democrats. They try to engineer society through everything.
Let the economy run by itself with few regulations, collecting the taxes that are generated by the growth and the consumption of goods and services (remember, the Government produces nothing, it only consumes). Do not make things more complicated than they are. Government collects taxes, consumes some goods and services and returns nothing to the economy.

[catman]

As to being for the little guy, I believe those thoughts went out just before I left the Democratic Party.

[CKFresh]

Fresh, I agree buddy. There are none so blind as those who will not see. Maybe if we start arguing in biblically derived fashion he will understand. Nah, he reflects truth like Teflon. I think I'll start calling him the Teflon Don. Keep thinking fresh.:thumbup:

That's a good nickname :lol: Perhaps we could get back into the evolution argument, or any scientific argument. Those are the arguments that truly expose his unwillingness to accept fact.

[Jaguar Rick]

Catman and IntheNet, You keep citing all this voodoo economics babble about tax rates and fragments of statements that mean absolutely nothing. As an example, you can take a company with 9 employees. The head of the company makes $1 million dollars per year. The other employees make minimum wage. The average wage is then said to be over $100,000.00 per year per employee. Looks really great huh? That's the sort of figures the bush administration has been using when citing their economic successes. That looks very good without looking into the details, but to the people making minimum wage, it's only a smokescreen. It's similar to the distortions made by this administration during the run-up to the Iraq war. If you will remember...we will be greeted as liberators, the war will be paid from oil revenues, we are making great progress, etc. What gets me is, you only cite lies made by Clinton. Wise-up. You are being duped by the most transparent barrel of liars in history.

[CKFresh]

What more is there to a tax bill than how much people are paying into the Government?
Sorry, but this is not sociology we are talking about. This is a problem with Democrats. They try to engineer society through everything.
Let the economy run by itself with few regulations, collecting the taxes that are generated by the growth and the consumption of goods and services (remember, the Government produces nothing, it only consumes). Do not make things more complicated than they are. Government collects taxes, consumes some goods and services and returns nothing to the economy.

Well considering that bills (all bills) are several pages long, I think it is fair to assume there is more to it than simply just yes or no on raising taxes. That's the problem with republicans. They will find one part of a bill that someone voted for or against and use that to make some generalization about their beliefs. You need to look at a bill in it's entirety to understand what the person was voting for. For instance, many people voted against one bill that would have given body armor to our troops. Yet voted for another bill that did the same thing but just used different funds. Republicans use that first vote to say that the democrats voted against body armor for the troops. Well, it's not that easy or simply. You have to understand that each bill has different parts, and that often times there are multiple bills on the same issue that accomplish similar goals.

If life were as black and white as you would like to make it, things would be a lot more simple. Unfortunately, I am realistic, and I understand things are more comlicated than, "democrats will raise your taxes."

[IntheNet]

As an example, you can take a company with 9 employees. The head of the company makes $1 million dollars per year. The other employees make minimum wage...


Please cite such a company? The example you use as a rhetorical example is absurd... no such company exists..."9 employees and company head makes $1 million and other 8 employees make minimum wage?" That's just absurd and not even worth responding to as an example....

[catman]

Voodoo economics? Interesting choice of words that Fritz Mondale tried to pass off as truth in 1984.
Your example is not realistic, Rick. A small business will not have that sort of payroll disparity.
How many people over 21 do you know, personally, that work minimum wage jobs? That, my friend, is a true smokescreen. There are fewer adults making minimum wage than you would have anyone believe.
I'll offer you the same advice -- wise up. You are being duped by people that only want to control your life. I simply want you to live to the best of your abilities and enjoy whatever pursuits you wish.
As to distortions made by this administration, they were saying nothing more or less than what Mr. Clinton and his cronies said for the last 3 years of his occupation of the White House. If they are lies now, they were lies then.
And you consider Mr. Clinton to have been a good President. You should be ashamed of yourself.

[catman]

Fresh, Democrats want to take control of private lives, Republicans want to allow people to live the way they want to.
Democrats believe that the Government knows more about how to spend my money than I do. Republicans want me to make that choice for myself.
This administration has muddied the water a bit. President Bush is not a conservative, by any means. He is not a "small-Government' guy. I disagree with him as much as I agree with him. On taxes, I agree with his policies.

[Jaguar Rick]

Please cite such a company? The example you use as a rhetorical example is absurd... no such company exists..."9 employees and company head makes $1 million and other 8 employees make minimum wage?" That's just absurd and not even worth responding to as an example....

I was giving an example of how anything can be made to sound different than it really is. I can give you an example though-my brother in laws printing company. He makes more than a million per year, and his 15 employees make minimum wage or just a little above. I can imagine it happens in thousand of places, especially in small town America. You see 1 or 2 mansions, and a few hundred humble dwellings in many places in the South. When I lived in Tennessee I met a man who worked in a furniture factory for over 25 years, made 10 cents over minimum wage, had no health insurance, and got 1 week vacation. He was blissfully happy, and was a strong Republican. When his children got sick he went to the local hospital and let the taxpayers pay the bills. You think that is not true? It's happening all over the country. If you don't believe it you are kidding yourself.
You are the King of contradiction. You say my post was not worth responding to, and you respond.

[CKFresh]

Fresh, Democrats want to take control of private lives, Republicans want to allow people to live the way they want to.
Democrats believe that the Government knows more about how to spend my money than I do. Republicans want me to make that choice for myself.
This administration has muddied the water a bit. President Bush is not a conservative, by any means. He is not a "small-Government' guy. I disagree with him as much as I agree with him. On taxes, I agree with his policies.

Your first statement is partly true. Democrats want more control on the private sector ECOMONICALLY, but not as far as civil liberties and individual freedoms, that would be the republicans. The democrats (or liberals in general) are much more likely to stay out of your personal life in terms of drug use, sexual preference, pornography, ect... The republicans are the "law and order" and "tell you what you can watch or do" party.

But I agree as far as economics the dems are much more for government control, just not socially.

[Jaguar Rick]

Voodoo economics? Interesting choice of words that Fritz Mondale tried to pass off as truth in 1984.
Your example is not realistic, Rick. A small business will not have that sort of payroll disparity.
How many people over 21 do you know, personally, that work minimum wage jobs? That, my friend, is a true smokescreen. There are fewer adults making minimum wage than you would have anyone believe.
I'll offer you the same advice -- wise up. You are being duped by people that only want to control your life. I simply want you to live to the best of your abilities and enjoy whatever pursuits you wish.
As to distortions made by this administration, they were saying nothing more or less than what Mr. Clinton and his cronies said for the last 3 years of his occupation of the White House. If they are lies now, they were lies then.
And you consider Mr. Clinton to have been a good President. You should be ashamed of yourself.

catman, I live in a small town in Ga. Very few of the people here make above the minimum wage. Every year the young people move to large cities to find work. The largest local company is a company that makes different products from eggs. They pay minimum wage with no benefits. Most of the other employers have started hiring aliens who will work for less than minimum wage. Even the locals who used to work for minimum are unemployed. Businesses have prospered under bush, but the common man hasn't. The minimum wage hasn't been raised in 10 years. Mortgage foreclosures are at an all time high as well.
By the way, the voodoo economics quote you attributed to Mondale is incorrect. It was said by George H.W. Bush in a debate with Reagan while seeking the Republican nomination. Where do you get your "facts"?

[Jaguar Rick]

The tax cuts were for everyone and discriminating against someone just because they make a lot of money is just as bad as discriminating against someone just because they are black. Should we tax people based on their race or gender?
I am in favor of a flatter tax rate, where people that consume the most pay the most -- like a national sales tax with no tax on income at all.

catman, I like that idea too. Always have. Why should someone have to spend hours, or pay someone else to figure out our tax returns? I hope someone gets elected that will fight for a flat tax until it is law.

[catman]

Rick, Mondale said it as well and was just as wrong.
As to the national sales tax, maybe we could get together as a team and run for President and VP. I live in Iowa and you live in Georgia. That would be pretty good geographically. We'd have to get support from the Northeast to win, though.
Co-Presidents?

[Jaguar Rick]

Rick, Mondale said it as well and was just as wrong.
As to the national sales tax, maybe we could get together as a team and run for President and VP. I live in Iowa and you live in Georgia. That would be pretty good geographically. We'd have to get support from the Northeast to win, though.
Co-Presidents?
catman, I am flattered that you would consider me as a running mate. But as I said to Carter and Reagan when they asked, if nominated I will not run, if elected, I will not serve. I will however consider voting for you- if you promise to get a flat-tax made into law, and promise not to select IntheNet as your vp.:)

[catman]

We'll see. Both parties have asked me to run for local and County offices in the past couple of decades and my wife has told me she would not support such a candidacy, so I doubt if she'd be "on-board" if I decide to do so in 2008.
The best we can hope for is to find someone that will propose such a tax program and support them. I think Steve Forbes was pretty close to this idea.

[Jaguar Rick]

We'll see. Both parties have asked me to run for local and County offices in the past couple of decades and my wife has told me she would not support such a candidacy, so I doubt if she'd be "on-board" if I decide to do so in 2008.
The best we can hope for is to find someone that will propose such a tax program and support them. I think Steve Forbes was pretty close to this idea.

catman, I agree with much Forbes said. I think if you knew Buddha, Poe, Fresh, Cure, and a few others who came over from the CBS boards, you'd know we don't necessarily oppose conservatives or Republicans per se. We just think Bush is a conservative in name only. I would love to pay less tax, keep more of my money, etc. But I know you can't up the spending, cut taxes, fund a war, and prosper under those policies. Most people could vote for a real conservative, there just hasn't been one in awhile.
BTW, I sent you a message concerning Iowa.

[catman]

I got the message and replied to it.
As to a real conservative, I would vote for one in a heartbeat. This is one reason I will not support Ms. Clinton in her candidacy. She is not a conservative and her views are in direct opposition to mine on many subjects.
For example, I am pro-life, she favors the "right to chose" abortion as an option, during any phase of the pregnancy. She favors higher taxes, I favor lower taxes. She favors national health care, which I oppose on quality grounds. Where healthcare is nationalized, the quality is not as good as it is where it private. For examples of this, look at the cities near the Canadian border. Their hospitals are very busy with Canadians that are willing to pay more for their care just because the quality is better. You get what you pay for.
I agree that George Bush is not a conservative, but the alternatives the Democrats offered were not acceptible to me. Mr. Gore is far too liberal for my liking. He would cripple business just to decrease CO2 production. I do not oppose cleaner forms of energy, in fact I favor wind-power, ethanol, biodiesel, etc. If one wishes to see what a "wind-farm" looks like, all one needs to do is drive from Des Moines to Minneapolis on I-35. About 20 miles North of Mason City, look to your left and you'll see one of the largest groupings of wind-turbines in the country. It is impressive to look at.
In 2004, had the Democrats run a legitimate candidate for the Presidency, they likely would have won. Instead, they ran Mr. Kerry -- a guy that can't even be bothered to show up for work in the Senate (he missed over 75% of the votes from 1996-2004) and Mr. Edwards, whose voting record is worse than Mr. Kerry's is. If they are serious about winning the White House in 2008, they won't allow either of these guys to be close to the nomination.

[CKFresh]

I got the message and replied to it.
As to a real conservative, I would vote for one in a heartbeat. This is one reason I will not support Ms. Clinton in her candidacy. She is not a conservative and her views are in direct opposition to mine on many subjects.
For example, I am pro-life, she favors the "right to chose" abortion as an option, during any phase of the pregnancy. She favors higher taxes, I favor lower taxes. She favors national health care, which I oppose on quality grounds. Where healthcare is nationalized, the quality is not as good as it is where it private. For examples of this, look at the cities near the Canadian border. Their hospitals are very busy with Canadians that are willing to pay more for their care just because the quality is better. You get what you pay for.
I agree that George Bush is not a conservative, but the alternatives the Democrats offered were not acceptible to me. Mr. Gore is far too liberal for my liking. He would cripple business just to decrease CO2 production. I do not oppose cleaner forms of energy, in fact I favor wind-power, ethanol, biodiesel, etc. If one wishes to see what a "wind-farm" looks like, all one needs to do is drive from Des Moines to Minneapolis on I-35. About 20 miles North of Mason City, look to your left and you'll see one of the largest groupings of wind-turbines in the country. It is impressive to look at.
In 2004, had the Democrats run a legitimate candidate for the Presidency, they likely would have won. Instead, they ran Mr. Kerry -- a guy that can't even be bothered to show up for work in the Senate (he missed over 75% of the votes from 1996-2004) and Mr. Edwards, whose voting record is worse than Mr. Kerry's is. If they are serious about winning the White House in 2008, they won't allow either of these guys to be close to the nomination.

On the health care issue, that is not a fair comparison. Canada doesn't have anywhere near the resources the US does. The US spends more on health care than any other country yet that does not translate to the best health care system in world. That is a problem. If we spent the same amount of money on a universal health care system it would translate to better care. Comparing us to canada is slightly misleading only because they are unable to pump the same kind of money into the system that we could.

[catman]

Which is because it is privately funded and operated. If it were to be nationalized, you would get people that were just in the field to get a paycheck and didn't care about their jobs. Why would they? No matter what they do, they won't get paid any better. Sure some people care about quality, but not everyone. The way things are now, the best Drs. get the most income or best positions. If healthcare were nationalized, this would not be the case. Jobs would be bid on and seniority, rather than qualifications, would matter most.
Count me out on national healthcare.

[CKFresh]

Which is because it is privately funded and operated. If it were to be nationalized, you would get people that were just in the field to get a paycheck and didn't care about their jobs. Why would they? No matter what they do, they won't get paid any better. Sure some people care about quality, but not everyone. The way things are now, the best Drs. get the most income or best positions. If healthcare were nationalized, this would not be the case. Jobs would be bid on and seniority, rather than qualifications, would matter most.
Count me out on national healthcare.

I understand your fears, but I think you could nationalize health care and maintain the competition. Give people a choice, but pay for it. Everyone is insured, but people still chose their doctor, their surgen ect...

[IntheNet]

Comparing us to canada is slightly misleading only because they are unable to pump the same kind of money into the system that we could.

You don't want to compare the nationalize health care plan to Canada simply because it would show the failings of nationalizing the health care in this country!

There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that mandates that healthcare is a prerequisite of the U.S. Government so it should butt out.... Health care is not a federal concern!

The Canadian health care system is a disgrace! Canadian citizens cross into the United States to have operations and good doctors fled to the United States when the Canadian plan was instituted! We need to pay attention to the Canadian example so we don't go down that road and bankrupt this nation by offering government run health care....

[CKFresh]

You don't want to compare the nationalize health care plan to Canada simply because it would show the failings of nationalizing the health care in this country!

There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that mandates that healthcare is a prerequisite of the U.S. Government so it should butt out.... Health care is not a federal concern!

The Canadian health care system is a disgrace! Canadian citizens cross into the United States to have operations and good doctors fled to the United States when the Canadian plan was instituted! We need to pay attention to the Canadian example so we don't go down that road and bankrupt this nation by offering government run health care....

No I say that because it is comparing apples to oranges. Each country is different as well as their resources. As far as it being a failure, why do over 80% of Canadians say they prefer their system over ours? Why are Americans ordering their prescription drugs from Canada?

[Jaguar Rick]

No I say that because it is comparing apples to oranges. Each country is different as well as their resources. As far as it being a failure, why do over 80% of Canadians say they prefer their system over ours? Why are Americans ordering their prescription drugs from Canada?

Right again Fresh, The US according to a report by the WHO is the only industrialized country in the World with a declining life expectancy. In 1960 The US was first in life expectancy in the World, now we are 14th! Guess which countries are pulling way ahead of us? The countries with a Nationalized Health Care System. Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Australia, Canada, Iceland, Germany, France, The Netherlands, Belgium, Norway, New Zealand to name some of them. I am not advocating socialized medicine, but there has got to be a way for the strongest nation in the World to provide care for it's citizens. If you say the Constitution doesn't provide for healthcare for everybody, why should we care? It doesn't say anything about building highways, nuclear bombs, air traffic control, or anything we have that makes us who we are. Just because it was not in the Constitution doesn't mean it isn't needed. Do you want to return to the life expectancy we had at the time the Constitution was written? Most of us would be dead by now.

[CKFresh]

Right again Fresh, The US according to a report by the WHO is the only industrialized country in the World with a declining life expectancy. In 1960 The US was first in life expectancy in the World, now we are 14th! Guess which countries are pulling way ahead of us? The countries with a Nationalized Health Care System. Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Australia, Canada, Iceland, Germany, France, The Netherlands, Belgium, Norway, New Zealand to name some of them. I am not advocating socialized medicine, but there has got to be a way for the strongest nation in the World to provide care for it's citizens. If you say the Constitution doesn't provide for healthcare for everybody, why should we care? It doesn't say anything about building highways, nuclear bombs, air traffic control, or anything we have that makes us who we are. Just because it was not in the Constitution doesn't mean it isn't needed. Do you want to return to the life expectancy we had at the time the Constitution was written? Most of us would be dead by now.

Great post Rick!

How can people continue to argue against it when the numbers simply say otherwise. The life-expectancy thing is proof-positive as far as I'm concerned, how else would you account for that? Maybe the fact that we still allow guns for anyone who wants them...

[Montrovant]

Great post Rick!

How can people continue to argue against it when the numbers simply say otherwise. The life-expectancy thing is proof-positive as far as I'm concerned, how else would you account for that? Maybe the fact that we still allow guns for anyone who wants them...

Maybe because we, as a country, don't practice particularly good eating/exercise habits? We're fat and lazy :P Of course, I have nothing against that, but if the glut of news reports on the increasing number of obese people in this country are at all correct, it would be a major factor in life-expectancy I would think.

On the flip side, healthcare can be damned expensive. I know I won't ever go to a hospital unless I'm in serious difficulty; testing is often really expensive. I've got a few friends that work in hospitals, including a current roommate, those x-rays and cat-scans cost a bundle!
To be fair, there are a number of reasons that can be attributed to high costs. And the quality of care is one of them.

As far as the prices of drugs go; well, I blame the pharmaceutical companies for jacking up the prices. I consider all the ridiculous ads you see for prescription drugs to be a sign of it. I don't know if the government needs to be involved in it, I'm not well enough informed, but it's annoying.

Canadians come here for surgery.....Americans go to Canada for prescription drugs.....seems to me both systems have their flaws :)

[CKFresh]

Maybe because we, as a country, don't practice particularly good eating/exercise habits? We're fat and lazy :P Of course, I have nothing against that, but if the glut of news reports on the increasing number of obese people in this country are at all correct, it would be a major factor in life-expectancy I would think.

On the flip side, healthcare can be damned expensive. I know I won't ever go to a hospital unless I'm in serious difficulty; testing is often really expensive. I've got a few friends that work in hospitals, including a current roommate, those x-rays and cat-scans cost a bundle!
To be fair, there are a number of reasons that can be attributed to high costs. And the quality of care is one of them.

As far as the prices of drugs go; well, I blame the pharmaceutical companies for jacking up the prices. I consider all the ridiculous ads you see for prescription drugs to be a sign of it. I don't know if the government needs to be involved in it, I'm not well enough informed, but it's annoying.

Canadians come here for surgery.....Americans go to Canada for prescription drugs.....seems to me both systems have their flaws :)

Well said Montro,

I also think it is important to point out that we, in America, spend much of our medical spending on the wrong things. We spend billions of dollars in research on boner pills (Viagra) and billions on pills like Xanax. Meanwhile no one is dying from impedence, yet cancer and heart disease are killing milliions.

I know we spend money on cancer research as well, but we DON'T spend money on rare diseases because there is no money in the cure. If only a few thousand people have a disease, spending millions on the research for a cure doesn't make sense because you will lose money. That's why the private sector free market system doesn't work best in terms of health care. It's about making money, and that's the bottom line. Health care should be about CARE and helping people, not making a profit.

I know boner pills are nice and all, I just think maybe we should concentrate out efforts/funds on more pressing issues.

[catman]

I understand your fears, but I think you could nationalize health care and maintain the competition. Give people a choice, but pay for it. Everyone is insured, but people still chose their doctor, their surgen ect...

Fresh, you're missing the entire point of Ms. Clinton's program. They wanted to nationalize the entire healthcare system, including my job. I would have become a Federal Employee, due the benefits of the position. That would have been fine for me, but who was going to pay for it?
The point of the program was that everyone was to have equal access to the Drs, and the Feds were going to pay for it. No competition, no price breaks. Everyone was to get the same prescription coverage.
Check out the poll at AOL, here: http://news.aol.com/dailypulse/012907/_a/candidate-clinton/20070129114909990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001
Not good for Ms. Clinton.

[catman]

No I say that because it is comparing apples to oranges. Each country is different as well as their resources. As far as it being a failure, why do over 80% of Canadians say they prefer their system over ours? Why are Americans ordering their prescription drugs from Canada?
Many Canadians do not live near enough to the US to justify the travel.
As to the prescription costs being lower, perhaps the Government's taxes on drug companies forces them to sell product at a higher cost here than they can in Canada, or possibly the Canadian Government's price regulations cause the lower prices. I'm not sure which is the case.
One more thing Fresh -- I'm not sure how regulated the prescription drugs are in Canada, but this is one area I feel must be closely regulated. I work for a State facility, and we use generic medications as quickly as they become available. None of these medications come from Canada, and I would not recommend anyone buying prescription medication there, unless you live in Canada. I am not a fan of buying something as important as that without knowing precisely what I am getting. I know what pills are supposed to look like, for some medications, but not for all of them. Buying medications without having the ability to ask a question about them is a very bad idea.

[catman]

As far as life expectancy, what is killing most of the people? Heart disease, cancer, complications of diabetes, strokes. All of these are related to lifestyle and eating habits. We, as a nation, have become lazy (as was previously stated). We do not exercise enough, nor do we eat properly. If we got more exercise and ate properly, many of the medications that have become routine -- cardiac, cholesterol, blood pressure -- would not be used nearly as much as they currently are.
The point about advertising is well taken. I do not approve of this because people will want to have these medications prescribed for them, many times unnecessarily.
I do not have any problem with the profits the drug companies make, as much of their profit goes into research and development. For every drug that makes it to market, 20 do not. Many drugs are removed from the market after release, due to unforseen side-effects and interactions with other medication. All of these cannot be tested for. Research and development is very, very expensive.
As to the "orphan" drugs -- those for rare diseases -- they are incredibly expensive, and only the largest of the drug companies can afford to manufacture them. They have a short shelf-life and cannot be stored easily.
If someone is diagnosed with one of these diseases, the medications will be found for them and shipped to them as quickly as possible.

[IntheNet]

No I say that because it is comparing apples to oranges.

There is nothing wrong with looking at Canada's system of health care nationalization and observing its failures... hardly apples and oranges... You just don't want to compare the two because of Canada's obvious failures!

As far as it being a failure, why do over 80% of Canadians say they prefer their system over ours?

Proof please. I don't believe this at all...

Why are Americans ordering their prescription drugs from Canada?

Tax differences, no FDA testing, and a variety of cost issues make Canadian drugs greater reduced in cost than comparable U.S. drugs...has nothing at all to do with nationalization by the way!

[Jaguar Rick]

Fresh, you're missing the entire point of Ms. Clinton's program. They wanted to nationalize the entire healthcare system, including my job. I would have become a Federal Employee, due the benefits of the position. That would have been fine for me, but who was going to pay for it?
The point of the program was that everyone was to have equal access to the Drs, and the Feds were going to pay for it. No competition, no price breaks. Everyone was to get the same prescription coverage.
Check out the poll at AOL, here: http://news.aol.com/dailypulse/012907/_a/candidate-clinton/20070129114909990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001
Not good for Ms. Clinton.

catman, Here again you are clearly not doing your homework. Before the HIAA started there disinformation campaign, the Clinton plan had a 60% approval rate. What happened even after the large insurance and drug companies showed support, was debates over who would profit most from the plan. It was estimated that drug companies would gain an additional $10 billion per year in revenues. When the commercials were ran on TV it rang the death bell for any compromising or tweaking of the plan. Mark my words, the way things are going, this will again appear and something will have to be done to assure coverage for Americans. If we can spend billions each month in Iraq, why can't we spend on our own citizens?

[catman]

Rick, if this was such a good idea, why did the Democratic Congress fail to pass it in 1993? Sorry, it was a very bad idea and will always be so. I will never vote for someone that designs such a terrible program.
What really happened is people looked into the program and realized how bad it was, Rick. It would have been the ruination of the healthcare system in this country.
I have no problem spending money on our citizens, but not with this program. It was bad in 1993 and would be worse in 2006.

[Jaguar Rick]

Rick, if this was such a good idea, why did the Democratic Congress fail to pass it in 1993? Sorry, it was a very bad idea and will always be so. I will never vote for someone that designs such a terrible program.
What really happened is people looked into the program and realized how bad it was, Rick. It would have been the ruination of the healthcare system in this country.
I have no problem spending money on our citizens, but not with this program. It was bad in 1993 and would be worse in 2006.

catman, I never really got into the Clinton plan, and it is very hard to find unbiased info on it. I respect your opinion.:thumbup:

[IntheNet]

Two others yesterday:

First Joe Biden:

Biden explains remarks, launches '08 campaign
By Steven Thomma and Margaret Talev
McClatchy Washington Bureau
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercu...s/16595048.htm
WASHINGTON - Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware found the first day of his bid for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination overshadowed Wednesday by his remarks describing presidential candidate Barack Obama as ``the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy.''


Then Loretta Sanchez:

Rep. Sanchez Steps Down From Congressional Hispanic Caucus After Interview Causes Firestorm
Thursday, February 01, 2007
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,249219,00.html
By Michael De Dora Jr.
NEW YORK — A firestorm erupted Wednesday within the Congressional Hispanic Caucus when California Rep. Loretta Sanchez quit in protest of Rep. Joe Baca's chairmanship and alleged mistreatment of women. Sanchez, in her fifth term representing California's 47th District, reportedly is furious at fellow California Democrat, Baca, for alleged derogatory remarks. In an interview with Politico.com she accused him of calling her a "whore."~

IT IS TRUE... Democrats really do eat their young! I'm going to stand back and await them all to self destruct!

[CKFresh]

IT IS TRUE... Democrats really do eat their young! I'm going to stand back and await them all to self destruct!

I don't think it really matters. The republicans have no candidates that stand a chance. The only candidates that would stand a chance in a general election will never make it through the primaries. No way McCain will get thje nomination, he's way too reasonable and moderate for republicans. He doesn't talk about Jesus in every speech, he doesn't want to oppress homosexuals, and he believes in women's rights - not very republican. Same goes for Ruddolph.

After that, who do the repulicans have? Huckabee from Arkansas, the guy who said "we have to take this country back for Jesus." Not a chance in a general election against actual intellectuals like Obama or Clinton. I can't think of one guy on the republican side who has any charisma or intelligence that could get the nomination.

I see a land-slide victory for the Dems in '08. Hell, even Gore or Kerry could beat the no name republicans they are throwing out there.

[Anthony]

The tax cuts were for everyone and discriminating against someone just because they make a lot of money is just as bad as discriminating against someone just because they are black. Should we tax people based on their race or gender?
I am in favor of a flatter tax rate, where people that consume the most pay the most -- like a national sales tax with no tax on income at all.



But remember the old economic saying - and it was coined by conservatives, not liberals: When you tax something you get less of it; when you subsidize something you get more of it.

Switch to a consumption-based tax and you'll get less consumption - and with it, a depression that would make the one that took place in the 1930s look like a boom by comparsion.

But of course, long before that stage was reached, you would have a revolution on your hands, because when you double or triple the taxes on the lowest-paid workers (which is what a national sales tax would do) they will take to the streets - and with a war on, in all likelihood, throw in with the enemy (al Qaeda, etc.).

The resulting wounds to the nation's psyche would take centuries to heal (as has been the case in France since their revolution, which, 150 years later, saw the French aristocracy spitefully collaborate en masse with the invading Nazis during World War II).

[catman]

Well Anthony, what do you have to suggest? More taxes on the "rich"?
Sorry, but a flatter, more consumption based system is far more "fair".
Like I said, those that consume the most should pay the most. If there is no "income" tax, people won't notice the increase in their costs as much, I'm sure.

[Jaguar Rick]

Well Anthony, what do you have to suggest? More taxes on the "rich"?
Sorry, but a flatter, more consumption based system is far more "fair".
Like I said, those that consume the most should pay the most. If there is no "income" tax, people won't notice the increase in their costs as much, I'm sure.

Amen catman! I am with you 100% I am tired of spending hours each year to pay taxes for things I don't like. Let us have a consumption flat tax, no deductions, no mumbo-jumbo. The people who spend and consume the most, pay the most. Take homesteads off the taxed too. Nobody should lose their homes because they are unable to pay a tax on it. People work hard all their lives to purchase a home, but because of taxes can lose it after a family loses their ability to pay. That is a travesty.

[CKFresh]

Well Anthony, what do you have to suggest? More taxes on the "rich"?
Sorry, but a flatter, more consumption based system is far more "fair".
Like I said, those that consume the most should pay the most. If there is no "income" tax, people won't notice the increase in their costs as much, I'm sure.

Yeah, I like the sound of it catman, but I am skeptical. Does anyone know if it has been tried anywhere? I would definately be worried about a drop in comsumption. Because even if people are getting more income (no tax) it's a mental thing, "That is WAY too expensive!" I suppose with time, that would change, but the immediate effect would probably be a severe drop in consumption. I'm on the fence.... Sell it to me catman ;)

[catman]

As I said, let those that consume the most pay the most. I agree that it may decrease excess consumption, but what would people do with their income? They won't just sit on it. If they put it in savings, it goes back into the economy and can be used as capital to finance economic expansion. If they spend the additional income, they pay the consumption tax.
Even wealthy people consume items. If they travel abroad to buy products they have to pay consumption tax on the travel expense.
The only real downside is if they buy items online from off-shore companies that would pay no tax in this country. I imagine these companies would have a definite uptick in their business, but this would be short-lived. No one will buy everything from a company like this.

[CKFresh]

As I said, let those that consume the most pay the most. I agree that it may decrease excess consumption, but what would people do with their income? They won't just sit on it. If they put it in savings, it goes back into the economy and can be used as capital to finance economic expansion. If they spend the additional income, they pay the consumption tax.
Even wealthy people consume items. If they travel abroad to buy products they have to pay consumption tax on the travel expense.
The only real downside is if they buy items online from off-shore companies that would pay no tax in this country. I imagine these companies would have a definite uptick in their business, but this would be short-lived. No one will buy everything from a company like this.

Yeah, I wonder how international business would be affected. For instance, would people over-seas buy our products less because of the tax? Would people in this country begin looking to other countries to buy things?

So many questions, but I agree with the idea in principle, due to the "fairness" aspect. It sounds nice, but I do have my worries.

[Anthony]

Well Anthony, what do you have to suggest? More taxes on the "rich"?
Sorry, but a flatter, more consumption based system is far more "fair".
Like I said, those that consume the most should pay the most. If there is no "income" tax, people won't notice the increase in their costs as much, I'm sure.


What's wrong with a single-rate, flat income tax, with a personal exemption roughly equal to the poverty level based on household size? Wasn't this what Dick Armey and Steve Forbes - hardly "liberals" - put on the table in the '90s?

The problem with survival-of-the-fittest economic policies is that they historically have had an uncanny knack for being replaced by the precise opposite - and the replacement process has tended to be horribly violent (witness France in the late 18th Century and Russia in the early 20th Century).

But before I would support even a flat tax, other reforms would have to be implemented - not the least of which being a minimum wage indexed to inflation, a total ban on all immigration for at least 50 years, and placing such severe tariffs on companies that outsource jobs overseas that none of them would even consider doing it.

Not only that, but why do we have a military at the moment - and one which is consuming the lion's share of the federal budget, and will continue to do so throughout the forseeable future? Answer: To protect our citizens' life, liberty and wealth from the Islamic extremists. Since life and liberty are equally important to everyone, shouldn't the wealthy have to bear an added burden for the protection of their wealth?

[catman]

Remember Anthony, under a "flat" tax, the low income people would pay the same percentage as the highest income people do. I do not object to this at all, in fact, I have proposed a flat tax with an income threshold, under which no tax liability exists.
The problem with this is that many people would be paid the threshold amount, soas to not be required to pay taxes and no more.
This is why I think a consumption tax would be better. For foreigners, I would impose an export duty, but not collect the tax on their purchases. I would impose am import duty on products purchased elsewhere also.
As to a total ban on immigration, I have a problem with that concept. We do not grow as a society without influences from outside our country and immigrants (legal) bring their culture and practices here with them.
There is no one that cannot learn from someone else, and no one that cannot teach someone else something.

[Anthony]

Well actually it's no use even debating this issue because this train has long since left the station: Until a month ago, the Republicans had control of the White House and both houses of Congress for six years. Surely if they felt they had any chance of getting anything like this passed they at least would have tried. And look at what they actually did do: They made the tax code more progressive, by reducing the bottom rate from 15% to 10% - and by doing so, ironically reversed a tax increase on low incomes that two "liberal" Democrats - Bill Bradley and Dick Gephardt - pushed through back in 1986 (their bill raised the bottom rate from 11% to 15%).

Remember also, that we're at war - and the traditional, ethical arrangement is that the rich contribute their money, while everybody else contributes their sons (and now, daughters as well) to the war effort. If you get away from this paradigm of shared sacrifice, you're asking for the worst kind of trouble - like that which fell upon Czarist Russia during World War I.

And did you hear that the mayor of Macon, Georgia has just converted to Islam? Don't play with fire.

[catman]

What is your complaint then? The poor pay less of their income than the rich do now. This administration has shown more "heart" than the Democrats have (decreasing the bottom marginal tax rate by 33%).
The richest 1% still pay over 30% of the taxes in this country and the poorest 50% pay less than 10%. The poorest 25% pay no taxes at all.

[Anthony]

Who's complaining?

But so what if the richest 1% pay 30% of the taxes - when they own 45% of the wealth in this country?

And absolutely no one pays no taxes at all. Ever heard of FICA? State and local sales taxes? The poorest 20% of Americans own about 3% of its total wealth - by far the lowest percentage for any developed nation on this planet.

It may interest you to know that in the 1950s - worshipped as a "Golden Age" by conservatives - the top marginal tax rate was 91%, and the typical corporate CEO had an after-tax income that was 12 times that of a rank-and-file production worker, as opposed to 350 times as much today.

[CKFresh]

Who's complaining?

But so what if the richest 1% pay 30% of the taxes - when they own 45% of the wealth in this country?

And absolutely no one pays no taxes at all. Ever heard of FICA? State and local sales taxes? The poorest 20% of Americans own about 3% of its total wealth - by far the lowest percentage for any developed nation on this planet.

It may interest you to know that in the 1950s - worshipped as a "Golden Age" by conservatives - the top marginal tax rate was 91%, and the typical corporate CEO had an after-tax income that was 12 times that of a rank-and-file production worker, as opposed to 350 times as much today.

Nice post Anthony.

[catman]

Anthony, you are pointing out the last good thing the Democrats did for the country. JFK streamlined the income tax structure by decreasing the number of brackets from 7 (I believe) to 3. The top marginal rate dropped from 91% (I believe it was closer to 70%) to under 40%.
With current exemptions, some earners do not pay any Federal Income Tax -- that's what I was getting at.
As to the top 1% owning 45% of the wealth in this country, are you going to tax ownership or income? If you are taxing on ownership, many prominent Democrats would be required to pay far more in taxes than they currently do.
Sorry, but this is not a valid argument. Wealth is frequently passed down from generation to generation -- for example look at Paris Hilton. She is one of the wealthiest people in the country and hasn't the talent to earn what I do.
Taxing ownership is taxing money that has already been taxed, which is why I oppose the 55% inheritance tax on estates valued at more than $1M. I have seen several farms have to be sold because none of the heirs could come up with the money to pay these taxes.
I have no objections to paying my share of the taxes to our Government, but I only want to pay once on each dollar -- not multiple times.

[IntheNet]

The poorest 20% of Americans own about 3% of its total wealth - by far the lowest percentage for any developed nation on this planet...

I would like to see some stats on this Tony and some references... The first part of your quote I might agree with [if you have evidence] but the second part makes no sense... I know of some developed nations where the poor percentage far exceed what you cite and their corresponding accumulation of "wealth" is very very low... much lower than ours...

[CKFresh]

I know of some developed nations where the poor percentage far exceed what you cite and their corresponding accumulation of "wealth" is very very low

Such as?
....

[IntheNet]

Such as?
....

India, for starters....

[CKFresh]

Would you like to cite a source or provide a link to support your claim?

How does the U.S. wealth profile compare to other countries?
We are much more unequal than any other advanced industrial country.

Perhaps our closest rival in terms of inequality is Great Britain. But where the top percent in this country own 38 percent of all wealth, in Great Britain it is more like 22 or 23 percent.

What is remarkable is that this was not always the case. Up until the early 1970s, the U.S. actually had lower wealth inequality than Great Britain, and even than a country like Sweden. But things have really turned around over the last 25 or 30 years. In fact, a lot of countries have experienced lessening wealth inequality over time. The U.S. is atypical in that inequality has risen so sharply over the last 25 or 30 years.

[IntheNet]

Would you like to cite a source or provide a link to support your claim?

That is precisely what I was requesting in post #94...

[Anthony]

Anthony, you are pointing out the last good thing the Democrats did for the country. JFK streamlined the income tax structure by decreasing the number of brackets from 7 (I believe) to 3. The top marginal rate dropped from 91% (I believe it was closer to 70%) to under 40%.
With current exemptions, some earners do not pay any Federal Income Tax -- that's what I was getting at.
As to the top 1% owning 45% of the wealth in this country, are you going to tax ownership or income? If you are taxing on ownership, many prominent Democrats would be required to pay far more in taxes than they currently do.
Sorry, but this is not a valid argument. Wealth is frequently passed down from generation to generation -- for example look at Paris Hilton. She is one of the wealthiest people in the country and hasn't the talent to earn what I do.
Taxing ownership is taxing money that has already been taxed, which is why I oppose the 55% inheritance tax on estates valued at more than $1M. I have seen several farms have to be sold because none of the heirs could come up with the money to pay these taxes.
I have no objections to paying my share of the taxes to our Government, but I only want to pay once on each dollar -- not multiple times.


But of course it's OK not to allow people to deduct what they pay in FICA from their income taxes - and it's also OK to charge people income taxes after they have already paid (state and local) sales taxes on just about everything they have earned, if they earn low incomes and are therefore forced to consume virtually everything they do earn.

So, if you want to talk about eliminating double and triple taxation ...

[catman]

When did I say anything of that sort, Anthony?
As I have said, I do not mind paying my share of taxes, but I do not like being taxed several times on the same money. FICA should be a deduction from both Federal and State taxes.
You are reading too much into my posts.