Michael Johnson <cds@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
news:MZSdnXL5bqKUiTTanZ2dnUVZ_tKinZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Joe wrote:
>> Michael Johnson <cds@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
>> news:866dneKPu8JaKzXanZ2dnUVZ_q2hnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>>> Joe wrote:
>>>> Michael Johnson <cds@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
>>>> news:U8KdneHmqIcNDDvanZ2dnUVZ_h6hnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>
>>>>> dwight wrote:
>>>>>> "Michael Johnson" <cds@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:lrWdnZmNDf_6jDvanZ2dnUVZ_ommnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>>>> dwight wrote:
>>>>>>>> "Michael Johnson" <cds@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:zOKdndScRdL3djjanZ2dnUVZ_uSgnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>>>>>>> c) Play cowboys and indians
>>>>>>>>> .... or he is trying to bring democracy to the Middle East and
>>>>>>>>> get rid of a mass murdering dictator claiming he had WMDs.
>>>>>>>> Uh... No offense, but the invasion came first. Then, while we
>>>>>>>> were there, it was HEY, let's establish democracy! Yeah, that's
>>>>>>>> the ticket. Revisionist history.
>>>>>>> I don't think the plan was to invade, capture Saddam and then
>>>>>>> immediately leave either. The biggest mistake made, IMO, was to
>>>>>>> disband the Iraqi military and let them meld back into society
>>>>>>> with no chance of gainful employment. The second was to not
>>>>>>> wait until we could come in from the north through Turkey and
>>>>>>> therefore seal off the escape routes out of Baghdad. There are
>>>>>>> several vying for third.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Establi****ng a democracy had nothing to do with the original
>>>>>>>> invasion and came up as a reason for the invasion long after we
>>>>>>>> were already in there. About the time that the whole WMD thing
>>>>>>>> was proven wrong, as I recall.
>>>>>>> If establi****ng a democracy wasn't part of the original plan
>>>>>>> then what was the original plan?
>>>>>> Isn't that the very question we are ALL asking? WHAT was the
>>>>>> plan, if any, and how were we supposed to go about it? After the
>>>>>> part where we were "greeted as liberators", I don't think there
>>>>>> was anything written in after the words "Fill in the
>>>>>> blank______________." As soon as Bush called Mission
>>>>>> Accomplished, the question "What do we do now?" was finally
>>>>>> asked. But don't try to tell me that the democratization of the
>>>>>> Middle East was anywhere on the table before then.
>>>> Bing-freakin-go. Nail hit on the head. Give the man a Cuban
>>>> cigar. OK, maybe a Montecristo instead.
>>>>
>>>>> I think leaving Iraq with a democracy was always the intent.
>>>> If this is true, then Dubya is probably the biggest moron I've ever
>>>> seen, especially considering the next several sentences.
>>>>
>>>>> We
>>>>> didn't plan to leave cold turkey. The thing that wasn't planned
>>>>> was how to go about creating a democracy. The plain fact is we
>>>>> don't understand that part of the world and how it works.
>>>> But Dubya just couldn't resist twirling his six-shooters and went
>>>> blazing in anyway.
>>>>
>>>>> Also, there was
>>>>> nothing to build from once Saddam was gone. The Bath Party was
>>>>> the only game in town and it couldn't be used as a legitimate
>>>>> vehicle to facilitate change. We also had to find leaders that
>>>>> could represent their respective people.
>>>> More evidence that the Bush administration had absolutely no plan
>>>> to deal with the aftermath. They were completely and utterly
>>>> pompous and naive.
>>>>
>>>>> We could have done a much better job than we did after the
>>>>> invasion.
>>>> Understatement of the century, with the possible exception of the
>>>> government's response to Katrina. "Brownie, you're doing a heck of
>>>> a job" ranks right up there with "Mission Accomplished". This is
>>>> stuff from Saturday Night Live skits, not real life.
>>>>
>>>>> We didn't but that doesn't mean we can't make the proper
>>>>> corrections and move Iraq into a better condition.
>>>> In order to save face, the only choice is to try and clean up the
>>>> mess we made. If, however, we can admit our mistake in going in,
>>>> the other choice is to simply leave it to the dogs and cut our
>>>> losses.
>>>>
>>>>> Hopefully we are seeing the
>>>>> beginnings of stability in the country. Time will tell. I have
>>>>> faith that the Iraqi people want to live in peace.
>>>> Most of the common people, sure. But the whole place is so
>>>> politically out of control that any real stability can't occur for
>>>> years to come. The point that Dubya still doesn't get is that a
>>>> military solution will simply not work. Stability has to come from
>>>> within first.
>>>>
>>>>> My nephew came back from a tour in Iraq last September. He had
>>>>> quite a few positive things to say about the conditions there. He
>>>>> is a Marine and was stationed in the Sunni Triangle near the
>>>>> Syrian border.
>>>>> For the seven months his group was there the area they patrolled
>>>>> saw
>>>>> a drop in violence of 60% and an increase in commerce of 700%.
>>>>> When he saw the news coverage last fall he was disgusted with the
>>>>> media's coverage of Iraq and the diatribe from the anti-war
>>>>> Democrats.
>>>> First, kudos to your nephew. But I wonder if the "surge" is
>>>> nothing more than Mom & Dad keeping the kids in line before they go
>>>> to bed. Trouble is, the kids will never go to bed, so Mom & Dad
>>>> have to stay up the whole night every night.
>>> I can only go by what he has told me and while he was there things
>>> improved in their area a great deal. He said there was also more
>>> collaboration with the local Sunni militias and many times they
>>> would be right along side the Marines fighting the foreign
>>> insurgents. He also said the police force improved a lot while he
>>> was there.
>>
>> I still think there's nothing to prevent these fanatics from hiding
>> in the woodwork until the coast is clear. We _are_ talking about the
>> Middle East...
>>
>>> Another thing that has changed is that we are no longer forcing them
>>> to take the path to governing like we do here or in other western
>>> societies. We are letting them figure out what works best for them
>>> and they are actually getting things done. It may not be what we
>>> think is best but it works for them. The Sunnis, ****ites and Kurds
>>> seem to have found a way to get along and, IMO, that is all that
>>> matters in the end.
>>
>> Agreed, in that they are human beings after all and have a sense of
>> self-survival. But there's no way on this planet that Dubya planned
>> that "strategy" out.
>>
>>>> We've put ourselves in a no-win position by simply being there.
>>>> Now that we're there, we can't leave or the place will blow
>>>> sky-high. You know what though? Freakin' let it.
>>> I don't think all is lost there. I kind of see their situation as
>>> two school kids fighting to a draw. They have beat each other
>>> senseless and have nothing to show for it and they now see that
>>> these Islamic extremists coming from outside Iraq are doing nothing
>>> but harm. Time will tell if the success of the surge can last but
>>> saying we are leaving and to hell with Iraq is the absolute worst
>>> thing we could do, IMO.
>>
>> At this point we should just tell them they have until such-and-such
>> a date to get their **** together, then sayonara, baby - you deal
>> with it now.
>
> The problem with that strategy is all those nuts hiding in the
> woodwork will know when to come out and wreak havoc.
So let 'em. I say it's time to close down Uncle Sam's babysitting
service.
>>>>>>>> But all that aside, I'm still confused about the whole
>>>>>>>> conservative thing. I'm a lifelong Republican, but I seem to
>>>>>>>> become more liberal as the party becomes more conservative.
>>>>>>>> There are a couple of things about the conservatives that I
>>>>>>>> just don't understand.
>>>>>>> I'm right there with you. I am fiscally conservative but lean
>>>>>>> to the left on many social issues. I am also for a strong
>>>>>>> national defense and a proactive position on fighting terrorism
>>>>>>> and sealing our borders. I don't care for the Republican party
>>>>>>> trying to enforce morals on the the m*****. Much of the social
>>>>>>> issues need to be left up to the States to address or on the
>>>>>>> local level. Religion based issues like gay marriage and
>>>>>>> abortion needs to be left out of the party platform, IMO. OTOH,
>>>>>>> the left needs to quit targeting religion to exclude it from the
>>>>>>> public arena.
>>>>>> Okay, we're 90% in agreement. I'm a strong believer in the
>>>>>> separation of religion from government. It might have something
>>>>>> to do with the fact that I am not a Christian. Now, I don't mind
>>>>>> the display of the 10 commandments at our local courthouse, and I
>>>>>> certainly don't mind government offices shutting down for the
>>>>>> CHRISTMAS holidays, so I'm not a rabid, foaming-at-the-mouth
>>>>>> separationist. But I would argue that, if Christians are allowed
>>>>>> to be part of government programs, all religions must be afforded
>>>>>> equal time. Or, at least, a percentage of equal time based upon
>>>>>> their percentage of the population.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yeah. That would be fun.
>>>>> The fact is this country is overwhelmingly Christian and always
>>>>> has been. I think we do quite well regarding religious tolerance
>>>>> considering this fact. The USA is one of the few countries in the
>>>>> world that has this level of integration of so many religions and
>>>>> personal beliefs. It will never be perfect and no one is going to
>>>>> get 100% of what they want. I'm not a card carrying Christian and
>>>>> can see that most religious expressions here will be Christian.
>>>>> No ones religious rights are being trampled in this country.
>>>>> Muslims and atheists just can't expect equal space on the court
>>>>> house lawn. They can expect to practice their beliefs in peace
>>>>> though.
>>>> God is ingrained in our government to the point where His name is
>>>> on our currency and in our Pledge of Allegiance. Of course those
>>>> things came later on, but they are there for a reason.
>>>> Unfortunately, some people take it way too far.
>>> You know the old saying.... When in Rome...
>>>
>>>>>>>> Smaller federal government, lower taxes, fiscal responsibility,
>>>>>>>> less government intrusion in our personal lives. I thought
>>>>>>>> that's what it was about.
>>>>>>> I am right there with you. The problem is the Republicans spend
>>>>>>> money just like the Democrats anymore. Government is getting
>>>>>>> bigger by the year and more intrusive. This is on all levels
>>>>>>> and not just the Federal level. I see it here where I live all
>>>>>>> the time. IMO, local governments are far worse in this regard
>>>>>>> than State and local governments. The sad fact is we just roll
>>>>>>> over year after year and let them get away with it. We are on a
>>>>>>> slow march to a socialistic form of government. I don't want
>>>>>>> this and if it happens we will all suffer for it.
>>>> Bush is largely to blame for this trend. He has fractured the
>>>> Republicans beyond belief, and he is forcing Big Government and Big
>>>> Brother down our throats as much as he can. It's nothing short of
>>>> repulsive.
>>> All levels and sides of the government are to blame for it. I look
>>> at the budget in this area just going to schools and it disgusts me.
>>> Especially considering the condition of the students they put into
>>> society year after year. Until spending is controlled at all
>>> government levels we will continue to become more socialist. I just
>>> hope the ignorant m***** get a clue before the trend is
>>> irreversible.
>>
>> The biggest problem is that morons are deciding where the money goes
>> and how it's spent. For the past eight years, it's been Bush's
>> buddies.
>
> The past two years the Democrats have had a big say in where the money
> goes and I didn't see much of a difference, if there was any, from
> where the Republicans spent it.
The Democrats are a bunch of wussy morons. They're no better than the
Republicans. Both parties are a complete mess, which leaves us all in
big trouble. Get ready for that recession, because it's coming like a
freight train.
>>>>>> And I'm torn. This is the United States of #*%& America,
>>>>>> goddammit. There has to be a way that we can care for those who
>>>>>> cannot care for themselves, without going all socialist about it.
>>>>>> There is NO reason why anyone should sleep on the streets in
>>>>>> this, the greatest nation in the history of the planet. Just from
>>>>>> a point of national pride, we should take care of the weakest
>>>>>> among us. I am blessed (uh, not in a Biblical sense) to be living
>>>>>> in the country and fairly well off. My life is comparatively
>>>>>> easy, my worries comparatively few. If the feds wanted to take a
>>>>>> few more dollars out of my paycheck and SWORE that it would be
>>>>>> used to help the homeless, the indigent, the hungry, and the
>>>>>> poor, I'd be all for it.
>>>> I'd never believe the feds - they're part of the problem.
>>>>
>>>>>> Throughout history and throughout the future, there have been and
>>>>>> always will be human beings who cannot make it on their own and
>>>>>> need help from the rest of us who can. I see nothing wrong with
>>>>>> that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There will be abuses, of course. But I will pay for those, too,
>>>>>> if it means caring for those who need it. (Of course, if I catch
>>>>>> you abusing this governmental charity, you'll have a different
>>>>>> kind of housing and three squares a day.)
>>>> Isn't this communism at its best?
>>>>
>>>>> The big misconception about homeless people is they don't want to
>>>>> be homeless. Most of them chose to live this way. Some don't but
>>>>> most do.
>>>>> The problem is how do you find the small fraction the don't?
>>>>> These
>>>>> people have the right to be homeless, IMO. Forcing them to do
>>>>> something we want is not what the Constitution and Bill of Rights
>>>>> condone. The fact is we will ALWAYS have homeless people. Most
>>>>> will be homeless by choice and some will be forced. The fact is
>>>>> the ones that are forced have the option to work their way out of
>>>>> it. The mentally ill will always be hard to identify and help. I
>>>>> wish this weren't the case but it is and it will not change
>>>>> without trampling the freedom of others to live a homeless
>>>>> lifestyle. If you want to see a real life example of what I am
>>>>> talking about watch the movie "Into The Wild". It is a true story
>>>>> about a college graduate that choses to live a homeless lifestyle.
>>>> My brother and his wife made a do***entary about homeless people
>>>> that basically agreed with this. They befriended a group of
>>>> homeless people that lived in the woods and they hung out with them
>>>> for a couple years, do***enting their lives. Of course they didn't
>>>> give up their home, they just visited an awful lot and got to know
>>>> them pretty well. By and large, the homeless are no different from
>>>> anyone else.
>>> Everyone has the right to be homeless if they chose to be. My
>>> father made friends with many homeless people throughout his life.
>>> I can tell you without hesitation that many of them are happier with
>>> their lives than a lot of very wealthy people I have known.
>>
>> The homeless that my brother got to know are very functional within
>> society. They simply choose not to have a traditional "home". Their
>> group has their own community in the woods, with a fairly traditional
>> structure. There's a leader, a board, and an unwritten law of
>> ethics. It works well for them.
>>
>>>>>>>> But then we come to the "social issues," for which
>>>>>>>> conservatives seem to BEG for federal involvement. How does
>>>>>>>> that mesh with conservative political beliefs?
>>>>>>> It doesn't. In reality you and I are more Libertarian than
>>>>>>> Republican. It is too bad that the Libertarians can't field a
>>>>>>> decent candidate because they have a great platform to run from.
>>>> Part of the problem here is that we have to freaking label
>>>> everything. Republicans, Libertarians, Democrats, etc. IMO,
>>>> parties have outlived their usefulness and should be eradicated.
>>> Unfortunately most people have to be part of a herd to feel
>>> comfortable and secure.
>>
>> Lemmings.
>>
>>>>>> I Googled up an article from back in October in the Wall Street
>>>>>> Journal:
>>>>>> http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB119127620102645595.html
on
>>>>>> why the GOP is losing its members. Pretty much goes along with
>>>>>> all we've been saying here.
>>>>> The GOP has lost its conservative soul. It can get it back but I
>>>>> think the party will have to hit rock bottom before it happens.
>>>>> It isn't there yet.
>>>> Now that is a scary thought. ;)
>>> The GOP I envision isn't heavily into social issues. It would be
>>> into low taxes, less spending, securing our borders, national
>>> security and getting government out of our lives whenever and
>>> wherever possible. It wouldn't tied up in gay marriage, abortion,
>>> flag burning etc. Those are issues best left to the individual
>>> states.
>>
>> Why limit those things to the GOP? Those things should be embraced
>> by everybody. Why do we need a freakin' party to say those things
>> are good?
>
> That is what the Republican party stood for in the 1960s and most of
> the 1970s. They are basically what Ronald Reagan ran on. It isn't
> nearly what they stand for today. I do know those things have never
> been in the Democrat play book since JFK. JFK would be a conservative
> today.
Again, I'm really tired of bull**** partisan politics. Let common sense
prevail and to hell with the parties.
>>>>>>>> Do I have to continue to believe that the American family is a
>>>>>>>> mom and dad, 2.3 kids, and a cat and/or dog? No matter what the
>>>>>>>> numbers tell me?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And do I have to profess Jesus is my personal savior to be a
>>>>>>>> Republican, or can I continue in my agnostic ways?
>>>>>>> No you don't. I haven't attended church regularly for decades.
>>>>>>> I just don't like the way religious leaders manipulate their
>>>>>>> congregations. This is why I think you and I are really
>>>>>>> Libertarians at heart.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Who was it that said I haven't left the party, the party's left
>>>>>>>> me?
>>>>>>> Ron Reagan said that when he left the Democratic party to become
>>>>>>> a Republican. IMO, Reagan would be disgusted with what the
>>>>>>> Republican party has become.
>>>> Without a doubt. Just look at how many Republicans have bailed
>>>> under Bush.
>>> I don't know whether they have bailed or just gone dormant.
>>
>> Either way, they've distanced themselves from Bush.
>
> Not distanced themselves but have chosen not to participate.
Call it what you will, these people have taken steps to disassociate
themselves from Bush, and for good reasons.
>>>>>> If I may offend even more readers, I blame the Moral Majority.
>>>>>> They weren't cutting it back in the 80s, and laid plans to gain
>>>>>> political control. They saw an opening in the Republican party
>>>>>> and took it, and today control my party's platform. Their
>>>>>> strategy was brilliant and effective. And may, even now, be
>>>>>> backfiring.
>>>>> The worst thing the Republicans did was take on the fight against
>>>>> abortion as an affront to God. I am against abortion and it has
>>>>> nothing to do with what God thinks on the matter. To me it is a
>>>>> human rights issue. I see a fetus as a human and it therefore has
>>>>> the same rights of every other human. Just because it is residing
>>>>> in a uterus doesn't give the owner of that uterus the unilateral
>>>>> right to terminate that human life. After all it wasn't spirited
>>>>> into her womb. It came about as a result of the deliberate
>>>>> actions of two people. My feeling is that abortion should not be
>>>>> used as retroactive birth control. If a woman's life is in danger
>>>>> when giving birth or she is raped then I can see where it is an
>>>>> option. The Republicans have fought this battle in the worst way
>>>>> possible, IMO, and it has hurt them dearly.
>>>>>
>>>>>> When the radical right (yes, YOU, Fox News) looks at the
>>>>>> Democrats, they conveniently ignore the millions and target the
>>>>>> few, to make the argument that the disgustingly liberal are as
>>>>>> representative of the Democrats as they are of the Republicans.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Perhaps it's time that all political moderates leave their
>>>>>> parties to create two new ones - we'd have moderate Democrats and
>>>>>> moderate Republicans, leaving the radical fringe elements to
>>>>>> battle it out amongs themselves.
>>>> I can't tell you how sick and tired I am of the partisan bull****
>>>> that this country wallows in every damn day. It's way past the
>>>> point of doing any good whatsoever. People are nothing more than
>>>> lemmings that "follow the party". It shapes their beliefs, and
>>>> consequently their lives. Nobody can think for themselves anymore
>>>> because they have to fall in line with some prescribed concept or
>>>> they'll be ostracized for being a troublemaker. It's all bull****.
>>>>
>>>>>> I gather that the Libertarians are these moderate Republicans. I
>>>>>> also gather that the old Green Party was most definitely NOT the
>>>>>> moderate Democrats, who still need to strike out on their own to
>>>>>> gain their own voice.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Perhaps I should lead them into the sunlight.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Let me stand for America. Let me be the prototypical American.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Every four years, I get real excited about politics and
>>>>>> faithfully watch all of the debates and argue candidates with
>>>>>> everyone who will listen.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I can name both Pennsylvania senators (I think... let me Google
>>>>>> that), and I even know who my congressman is, two years after we
>>>>>> moved into our new locale. I couldn't begin to tell you what the
>>>>>> political views are of ANY of these three, but I do remember that
>>>>>> I was disgusted with Rick Santorum and happy to vote him out of
>>>>>> office. (Now, who was it that took his place?)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When you get to the local government level, I have no idea. My
>>>>>> state senator or representative? I couldn't guess. No clue.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Does my community have a mayor? Or a board of supervisors? Uh...
>>>>>> sorry.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And whaddaya mean, I have to VOTE for judges?!?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Every four years - and especially THIS year - I go out to vote,
>>>>>> and I see the presidential nominees on the ballot. Easy - I tick
>>>>>> off my choice. The rest of the ballot... I get a glazed eye and
>>>>>> blank brain looking at it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And that, I believe, is the prototypical American.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Okay, truth is, I vote in every primary and every election. I
>>>>>> make it a point to do so, since this twice-yearly exercise is
>>>>>> really what it's all about to be an American. And I know that if
>>>>>> I don't vote, I don't have any right to complain, and I LOVE to
>>>>>> complain. I do know a little bit about the people who work in my
>>>>>> government, but not nearly enough to make a truly informed
>>>>>> decision.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I resolve, right now, right this instant, to investigate the
>>>>>> upcoming ballot in the primary in May (Pennsylvania) and to know
>>>>>> all I can know about the candidates for each office.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Because, as Obama would tell you, the government starts from the
>>>>>> bottom up. The guy sitting in an office in my municipal building
>>>>>> probably has more impact on my life that the guy or gal sitting
>>>>>> in the Oval Office.
>>>> So true. It all starts with the assholes that are trying to ruin
>>>> your life at the local level. And almost every one of them has an
>>>> agenda.
>>>>
>>>>> Until the average voter gives more than a **** about politics and
>>>>> the politicians they vote for nothing will change.
>>>> Also true, but here's what's going on: So the average guy comes
>>>> home after busting his ass for his idiot boss who couldn't manage
>>>> his way out of a paper bag, then paying $50 in gas that'll last him
>>>> 5 days for his commute. He checks the dimini****ng balance of his
>>>> checkbook, worrying because his insurance premiums went up and his
>>>> coverage went down, and his wife was laid off because her company
>>>> just outsourced her job, and his kid needs $6000 worth of braces
>>>> that he has no clue how he's going to pay for. After thinking
>>>> about that for a few minutes, he just doesn't give a **** about
>>>> trying to figure out which of the two guys running for office is
>>>> the lesser of two evils.
>>> Here's the problem, that average guy is close to having no tax
>>> burden outside of FICA and Medicare on the federal level.
>>
>> What?!? That guy probably pays 15% or more in taxes.
>
> It depends on what his income is and how many kids he has. The
> threshold for paying federal income tax goes up with every tax cut.
I'm _so_ glad you brought that up. This is the first year in a long
time that I have to take the standard deduction, simply because I don't
have enough to itemize. My mortgage interest is getting lower, and my
$9,000 in medical costs (along with other stuff) aren't enough to allow
me to itemize. I've lost the deduction for my son, as he's now 19, and
he's getting taxed on scholar****ps he's received because they're more
than his tuition costs.
So, in a nutshell, because we're fiscally prudent, we get _no_ breaks
and have to pay more in taxes. We are pretty much the definition of
"Middle Class", and it sucks big time.
>>> What do we do next
>>> for him? Give him a welfare check every week? I think EVERY person
>>> needs to pay some amount of income tax.
>>
>> Well, then you're going to have to tag everyone so that Uncle Sam
>> knows they're out there. No more flying under the wire.
>
> You mean the illegals?
Not people who are here illegally, but valid citizens who work waiting
tables for tips. Believe me, I'm the first one in line to say 'no
amnesty' to illegals.
>>> Not to punish them but to
>>> keep them engaged in the political process. I mean, hell, if you
>>> aren't paying any taxes then why give a **** about who gets elected?
>>> We are creating a whole class of people that don't contribute to
>>> their governmental upkeep and we are now trying to shove the entire
>>> middle class into that category.
>>
>> Hang on. Who is 'we'? I'm not saying let people skate by, I'm
>> saying let's even the playing field.
>
> "We" is society as a whole by letting government run a muck.
Granted, a lot of people are apathetic and just plain uninformed. That
said, current-day politics and the system in general prevent true
reform. Look how hard it is just to get a 3rd party candidate to be
taken seriously.
>>> Isn't the very definition of middle class
>>> mean they can afford to pay a reasonable amount of income tax?
>>
>> Not anymore. The definition of 'middle class' now is that you make
>> too much to get any real breaks, but you don't make enough to achieve
>> any kind of real comfort zone. "Middle Class" is being stuck in that
>> paycheck-to-paycheck zone where you just can't get ahead because
>> prices always rise just beyond your income level.
>
> Getting "breaks" is part of the problem. The "break" the middle class
> needs is lower tax rates across the board. Not eliminating taxes on
> more middle class people by shoving the tax burden up the proverbial
> food chain. Every time they raise taxes on higher income people a
> section of that group now gets taxed back into a lower standard of
> living. It is a vicious circle that won't end until they break the
> back of our economic system and before you know it we are living in a
> socialist society.
A _permanent_ across-the-board tax cut would certainly help the middle
class, but how would it be funded? That same middle class will pay for
it dearly later on.
The _real_ solution IMO is parity between income and expenses. Middle-
class jobs simply do not pay enough for people to remain middle class.
When this first became a problem, Mom went from stay-at-home back to
work. Now that everybody's already working, what's next? Two or more
jobs for each parent? Where's the quality of life anymore? If this
trend keeps up, say goodbye to the Middle Class.
>>> The
>>> real problem for the middle class is they are taxed to hell and back
>>> by goverment in ways they can't comprehend.
>>
>> No - the real problem for the middle class is that they just cannot
>> get ahead due to current economics. The cost of living goes up
>> faster than the middle class can make money. The end result is that
>> the middle class will eventually become the top-end "poor" (albeit
>> without tax breaks), and the rich will simply be richer.
>
> The cost of living (i.e. inflation) is not out of control.
I can't believe you said that. Just a few major examples: Housing,
gasoline, groceries, medical costs. Go review your checkbook for the
last couple years and tell me the same thing with a straight face.
> Taxing
> ANYONE more is not the answer for anything. It will only compound the
> problems and make things worse.
Agreed.
> Like it or not these rich people are
> the economic engine that creates jobs, supplies capital to large and
> small businesses, starts companies etc. They are not the enemy and if
> they can't make money here in the USA they will take their money
> someplace else.
I'm not disagreeing with you. Entrepreneurs make things happen and
provide op****tunities. I've already identified the problem as the
inequity between income and expenses for the middle class and below.
> Just because the rich get richer doesn't mean the
> poor gets poorer. I always think of a saying I heard years ago, "Did
> you every get a paycheck from a poor person?" Rich people are
> typically not the greedy, conniving, lazy individuals many people like
> to make them out to be. Most are hard working, provide good jobs and
> have EARNED every dime they make. They aren't stealing from anyone.
You're preaching to the choir.
>>> Everything from federal
>>> income tax, social security taxes, state income tax, sales tax, real
>>> estate tax, real estate transfer fees, personal property tax, excise
>>> taxes, excessive traffic fines, taxes included in every utility bill
>>> and the list goes on and on. It is amazing there is anything left
>>> for buying food. This is why the middle class is being crunched
>>> financially, IMO.
>>
>> To a point, but again, the big reason is because the middle class
>> can't make enough to match the current cost of living. Even with tax
>> relief (yeah, this year's "tax rebate" is really gonna help - LOL!),
>> middle class families are stuck in the never-ending cycle of working
>> harder only to pay more for what they need.
>
> The other side of that coin is there is a large section of the middle
> class up to their eyeballs in debt from buying more house than they
> can afford, racking up credit card debt to have an HDTV with all the
> trimmings and wanting, not needing, the $45k vehicle sitting in their
> driveway. Then they complain because they can't afford health care.
> Or they decided to have more kids than their income level can
> comfortably sup****t. I don't have much sympathy for this component of
> the middle class and there are a lot of these people out there. I see
> no reason to dispro****tionately tax the more wealthy to subsidize
> their over extended lifestyle.
I couldn't agree more. People that overextend themselves have no one to
blame but themselves. It burns me that the feds want to give these
"victims" of the subprime mess a handout. But to be fair, why is it ok
for Bush to run the government like that?
>>> They definitely aren't getting their money's worth from government
>>> on
>>> all levels.
>>
>> There is a _major_ imbalance between what people earn and what things
>> cost. Of course, the people who don't think a recession is coming
>> aren't in the middle class. They're either rich enough to be immune
>> to the cost of living, or they're poor sots who don't care because
>> they're just trying to survive day to day.
>
> Like I said above, it depends on what those "things" are. People
> scraping by with one, or no, kids and then have another one don't get
> much sympathy from me. Or the ones that think they should have the
> more expensive house when one a third of the cost would work just
> fine.
Sure, that's one thing. But the vast majority of the middle class is
simply being priced out of that class.
> Another thing that irks the **** out of me is to watch people buy
> lottery tickets like they were free. Most times the people buying
> them probably just came from the grocery store and paid using food
> stamps. It drives me insane I tell you.
IMO that's simply people living a dream.
>>>>> The only time they
>>>>> will give a **** is when the government makes a surprise run into
>>>>> their wallets and leaves them with nothing.
>>>> Newsflash: It's happening right now. Bush's tax cuts didn't do
>>>> **** for the guy I talked about above.
>>> Getting a tax cut is better than not getting one.
>>
>> Sure, who doesn't want "free money". But guess what - it's NOT FREE.
>> Tax cut now, pay for it double later.
>
> At least you spent the tax cut money on what matters to you. Do you
> really trust the government to spend it wisely?
No, but that doesn't deny the fact that someone's going to pay for that
cut later on, and it'll cost more.
>>> Whether you cut
>>> taxes or not it won't effect spending one little bit. In fact, they
>>> will spend every tax cut you didn't receive and then some. You
>>> might as well take the tax cut and be happy you get to spend it
>>> instead of a politician ear marking it for a worthless project in
>>> his district.
>>
>> Right. So I will take my $600 (or whatever the hell it is) and pay
>> off some debt. They've got rocks in their heads if they think it'll
>> jump start the economy.
>
> It won't do **** for the economy. It might help someone fill a gas
> tank or put that new HDTV in the living room.
>
>> Another newsflash: This tax cut is nothing more than a feel-good
>> placebo to keep the general public from burning Dubya and the feds at
>> the stake.
>
> You seem to be eager to slam Bush when the Democrats were falling all
> over themselves to do the same thing. ;)
Believe me, the Democrats are no better. Bush just happens to be at the
helm right now. Also, I think he's more fiscally irresponsible than
most other people (both Democrats and Republicans).
>>>>> Unfortunately most
>>>>> Americans won't take the effort to really educate themselves
>>>>> before entering the voting booth.
>>>> Also unfortunately, most politicians will lie and cheat in order to
>>>> get elected. And once they're elected, they'll work only for
>>>> themselves and leave their constituency to rot in the gutter.
>>> It happens all the time. Any decent politician leaves public
>>> service early because they can't stand the sleaze and slime they
>>> have to work with in Congress.
>>
>> Maybe this is why Powell is sitting out on the sidelines...
>
> That is why thousands are sitting on the sidelines, IMO. There's no
> way I would subject myself to it. Life is too short.
And we've come full circle back to how to change the system so that it
actually works...
|
