Actually I like the gardener analogy better. If the gardener shows up with a manual lawn mower (Think no engine, not "no auto power drive"), then yes, I just may insist he uses my tools, especially if I'm paying him by the hour.
If he shows up with an electric weed wacker (in say Gray-Out Davis's California), I just might insist that he use my gas powered model.
And if he expects ME to furnish the tools, he can make recommendations, but I have the final say. Maybe I don't think he really needs that $2000 John Deer lawn tractor, when I can pick up something similar for $1000 from a different manufacturer.
I give him creative license on how he cuts my yard, within limits defined by a very broad program (I want it cut neatly and trimmed nicely), but I don't surrender all control just because he is the Artiste!
It's the same for documents. Yes, MS Office documents are evil. I despise HTML mail. And Exchange and Notes vie for which one earns my utmost contempt. However, if the majority of the workers are using these tools, best I find a way to work around them. Sometimes it's even necessary to humor someone in power.
I worked at an ISP. We had perfectly decent Linux and BSD boxen doing the mail and web services. Our programmers were all Unix. However, because 2 management personel didn't use Linux on a day to day basis, we had the pleasure of installing an Exchange box and an IIS box for the Internal network. Thank god IMAP can even work with an Exchange server. As for the IIS, I think all that was ever there were memos and schedules from Management. And I thanked God that Exchange went down right AFTER I quit.:) For some reason, after the Exchange box went blooey, I don't think they ever bothered to put it back up.:)
But to be honest, right now I would kill for a job there again. Even though they had some crazy rules, at least management wasn't lying to us constantly and trying to screw us every time we turned around. I found a job in corporate IT and found out that the grass really ISN'T always greener.
Re:Coordinated Efforts
on
More WTC News
·
· Score: 1
And let's not forget the German's with Deutsche Bank, and the Japanese with Fuji Bank, etc. There's a reason why it was called the WORLD Trade Center, and there's a very good reason why the UN Security Council and NATO, as well as Russia, Japan, Israel, etc. are upset.
Re:What the hell do you expect?
on
More WTC News
·
· Score: 1
Israel is our only true Ally in that region. They are fighting for their lives against animals that attempt to totally destroy their way of life. We now have a feeling for what they have been going through for years. We have lost 2 large office buildings with massive loss of life, an attack on the Pentagon, and another plane that was heading for DC for another major target, such as the Capitol Building, the White House, or other symbols of American freedom.
Israel has seen Disco's and restraunts blown up by these same madmen. They have seen their people destroyed, for no more reason than they got in Germany in WWII. Because of their religion. They have attempted to live with these animals and treat them as human. They have been attacked repeatedly because of this.
Instead of cutting loose, we need to make it clear that this attack has strengthened our resolve. We should be backing Israel 200%, and helping them search and destroy the terrorist cells in the West Bank. Palestine should not exist as of this moment.
Israel did not do this, and they did not encourage it. By pulling the plug we give the bastards what they want. Instead, we should be teaching them a valuable lesson. They have awakened a sleeping giant that will use the full power of it's might to totally destroy the perpetrators of these heinous acts.
I won't go so far as to what was said in WWII, but it's pretty close. To paraphrase a great American, after today, the language of terror should only be spoken in hell.
Re:And here comes Carnivore...
on
More WTC News
·
· Score: 1
The purpose of these animals is to bring attention to their "cause." Doing this terrible act without any way of it being identified as their work would totally remove the "usefullness" of their work.
As for the person who said "We have to be nicer..." No! We need to show these animals that the helping hand we currently extend can be turned into a fist very easily. Palestine celebrated over this attack. Palestine should become a parking lot for Israel.
These people... No, I won't call them people, it gives them too much dignity. These ANIMALS have encouraged this for years, and in all that time we did nothing, feeling safe and secure. We no longer feel that way.
Destruction of the persons responsible is a good first step. Destruction of the nations that encourage this is an even better second step. Just as we put down a rabid animal, so too do these nations need to be put down permanently. These actions cannot be forgiven or forgotten.
We have been far too lenient with these animals in the past. We try to ascribe to them Western values. THEY DO NOT HAVE THEM! They are willing to destroy people in the name of Allah. They shall be punished.
During WWII, we did not worry about collateral damage. We kicked butt, and saved Europe. Perhaps now it is time to kick butt again, and save the Middle East. And if innocent people are killed, so be it. The other side has decided on the rules.
Actually, now by law they HAVE To have a recount. It's going to be a LONG day. If Bush loses, there's no way he's going to concede until after the Military votes come in, since those are usually Republican.
1) You hear the liquor store got robbed
2) You jump into your car and head over
3) Once there, you get out and walk over to the building
4) You rattle the front door to see if it's locked.
5) You rattle the back door to make sure it's locked too
6) You climb onto the roof and make sure the air ventilation shaft is properly secured.
7) You go into the sewer and check to make sure that no one tunnelled into the basement
8) You notice that a window is open in the back and try to climb through. You can't fit so you shimmy back out.
9) You go home and tell your buddies... I think they got in through the window.
You wonder why you get picked up by the cops. hel-LO. It is NOT his right to poke around someone else's system to see how it's secured. Nor is it his job. If he wants that job, put in a resume, don't just start doing the work.
You're right. Vote for Gore, the lesser half of Clinton-Gore, the people that brought you DMCA, UTICA, COPPA, CDA, Generalissimo Reno... Yeah, you're on the right track there!!! Whoo-hoo!
Seriously, I although I can sympathize, I really can't feel too bad about this particular case (other than that the Justice Department asked for and GOT search warrants on this flimsy of evidence). The reason why is that those of you crying a river for this poor soul would be the first calling the Fed's if you thought someone was attacking you. Well, maybe not all of you, but enough.
The pr0n issue is another story entirely. It's possible that they just wanted to make sure that the disks did not contain files related to the case (which is an OK thing to ask. These were burnt CD's), and mentioned that they better not contain kiddie pr0n, just possibly letting the guy know what the law is on that issue. Or maybe they wanted to see if it would appeal enough to the white house staff to get them a raise in the DOJ. Who knows? Regardless, HAD they found anything and taken it, the case would have been tossed out quite quickly on illegal search and seizure grounds.
PS: I believe, but am not 100% sure, that AlGore voted for Scalia. Does that mean that he APPROVES of this Judges actions? Guess you'd better not vote for him either. And, BTW, Scalia is actually appears to be a decent judge.
"I don't think its anybody elses right to force someone to bear a child and bring them into this world just because they believe it to be wrong to do otherwise."
This is typical of the poor reasoning skills of the "pro-choice" movement. If I have an apartment for rent and I want to start storing my own stuff in there, can I kill the inhabitants because "it isn't anybody else's right to force me to rent"? No, because that's irrelevant.
Here here!
An even better question for you males out there in/. land: Why is the woman's right to choose paramount? Where is the man's right to choose? If a man says, "This baby was a mistake. I'm not ready for this, nor can I afford this. I want an abortion." and the woman says no, he's stuck with HER CHOICE! He doesn't get a choice. He can't say that she HAS to get an abortion because it will ruin HIS life. It's all about HER!
I'm a firm believer that if you believe in choice that you need to change the viewpoint of your own people.
All the following assume that a woman is pregnant and knows (or suspects) who the father is. If the mother wants an abortion and the father doesn't, the father must pay the mother a set amount of money for her time and trouble to have the child. Perhaps go by what host mothers are paid for people that can't carry a child to term. If the mother wants to keep the baby, and the father wants an abortion, the mother MUST renounce all claims against the father for financial support. In this case, the father will also never have custody of the child. Or for that matter even see it. If mother and father BOTH want an abortion, they split the cost 50-50. If neither wants an abortion, they do the civilized thing and either give the baby up for adoption or raise it.
There, that gives EVERYONE a choice, doesn't it?
(Where's the asbestos suit when you really need it... Oh wait, the government regulates that so much I can't buy one anymore...)
Hmmm... It seems like he was saying what I was. That insurance from the government isn't insurance. That what was really important was "Are people getting health care?" Not "Are people insured?"
I'd need to re-read it though, but in the context, coming after the diatribe by Gore about 15% not being insured, it appears to be saying that the folks from Washington are using insurance as a word in a different way than the rest of the US does. And I think from the context of that debate, he's right. Gore appears to be saying that we have to get 100% of the people "insured" and that we'll do this with government programs. But somehow that won't nationalize the health industry.
They didn't ignore it. They did one worse. They continually marginalized it. Had they ignored it, Clinton would have been out on his ear. Instead they repeated the lies about how everything was a personal matter.
You know, I just finished reading the tripe served up in this article about Character Assassination. It was laugh out loud funny! 4 stars out of 5. Oh wait, this guy was serious???
Someone in the IS department of UCLA, a noted liberal university in a noted liberal state, writes an article about character assassination praising Gore for not lying? Pardon me while I chuckle.
Further, he posts several of the lies, with LINKS TO ARTICLES! Oh My! Of course, the articles are to a left leaning Washington comedian. Not excessively proven to my satisfaction. Then, he insists on trying to assassinate the character of George Bush and company! What a laugh!
The media is CONSERVATIVE? What exactly are you smoking? This is the media that consistantly gives financial donations to the liberal left, consistantly underplays family values, and lets Clinton-Gore float on all their irregularities?
Had the media been conservative friend, Clinton would have been impeached and Gore would have ended up next on the chopping block. Both of them would have ended up in jail for their many schemes and lies, and the newly single Hillary Clinton would've been finding some other sucker to attach herself too.
During the entire impeachment trial, these suckers allowed this group of rogues to seduce them into getting them off the hook. "It's a personal matter." It is NOT a personal matter to have "relations" with an intern in the Oval Office. "It wasn't a fundraiser." Hmmm... Show up, promise support, get check. Naw... No funds were raised there. "I had a lot of ice tea and had to go to the bathroom a lot." Do we really want a President with a bladder the size of a pin head? He'll be in the can when the hotline rings!
No, the media is not conservative. It never has been and never will be. Remember that conservative thought is considered "old school" and the media considers itself the watchdog against the "oppression" that old school thinking supposedly brings. What has finally happened though are 2 major things. The media has finally figured out that AlGore and the Dems are playing them like chumps, which they sincerely don't like. The media has also started smelling the blood in the water as more and more of Gore's campaign turns into more and more tricks.
As for Bush's intelligence vs. Gore's, I would like again to see more so called evidence before I would EVER concede that point. It has been well documented that Bush routinely made A's, B's and C's, while Gore repeatedly got C's, D's, F's, and incompletes. And Gore is the smarter one? Perhaps you're upset because the media initially tried to do just that, question Bush's intelligence, and guess what, THE PUBLIC DOESN'T CARE! They don't care if people make grammar errors. Guess what, MOST PEOPLE MAKE GRAMMAR ERRORS! They don't care because they know they can trust the man to do the right thing. They trust him to hire people that know what their doing. They trust him to protect EVERYONE's rights, not just special groups.
I am interested in the insurance - that's a Washington term quote. Got a source on that? I'd like to see what the FULL quote is... If it came from my mouth it would have been something like:
"Calling Welfare insurance... That's a Washington term." Hmmm... Makes sense to me... Another case of how words don't mean the same thing to the Clinton/Gore administration.
I'm not saying the abolition of taxes here. I'm saying a REDUCTION in the already LARGE amount I pay! And I'm not "rich." I'm dirt poor!
As for roads, they should be paid for under a fuel tax. Why should someone pay for a road that they do not use? Take a drug not recommended by the FDA? Happens all the time. You can buy 4 or 5 illegal drugs at the school right down the street.
Banks pretty much already decide what they want to charge. We the people can't even pass a law making it illegal for them to overcharge us to use the ATM! Utilities are also charging pretty much what they want, since they purchase polititians all the time...
What I want is for people to stop asking for handouts and start learning to do for themselves instead.
I choose not to have children, so I'm penalized at tax time (especially if AlGore gets in) by having to pay a higher percentage than a breeder. I work, so I'm fleeced to pay for someone else's food, drugs, smokes, booze, and cars. Perhaps if it wasn't quite so easy to scam the system I wouldn't be so upset about paying for it.
Let's CHANGE the welfare system in America:
1. Food stamps are used only for FOOD. Meat, bread, cheese, milk, lettuce. Make it so that people using my taxes to live can't get luxuries I can't afford. No soda, chips, candy, junk food, pizza, etc.
2. Anyone caught buying drugs, alcohol, or cigarettes while accepting food stamps should lose them.
3. Get rid of section eight housing. That is a rip off scam run by slumlords for the most part.
4. Give people an incentive to work. Change the draconian rules so that if someone gets assistance and gets a job, their health coverage isn't cut off until their job benefits kick in or they can make enough money to pay for it themselves.
5. Bring back the WPA! If you want a government check, you'll be doing government work. They can dig ditches, lay pavement, build bridges, and all at the same time get valuable work experience.
I'm not opposed to helping someone in a hard time. I am however opposed to generations living off the sweat of my brow. The problem is that the Democrats don't WANT people off the dole, nor do most social workers. If people get off the dole and start making their own money, they won't feel an urgent need to vote the Dems in for more bread and circuses. And social workers would have to go out and get honest jobs. And the other problem is when you have no incentive to work, and in fact could lose something you really need (ie: health insurance) by getting a job, why would you? There are many people on welfare that are only there because it pays their medical bills. And there are also many people that are on their because it's easier than working.
Sorry... Just get tired of seeing nothing but Republican bashing on/. You'd think we all worked for Microsoft or something!:)
I can agree to a certain extent. However, there is also the question of how much bread and circuses we vote for the masses to keep them quiet and entertained. There's an old say, "Once you pay Danegeld, you never get rid of the Dane." We the working people, both "rich" and "poor" have paid Danegeld for years in the form of welfare, Social Security, Medicare, Medicade, Free Lunch programs, foodstamps, etc. etc., that now we're never going to get rid of the Dane. We will always be stuck now with a large class of citizens that do nothing, produce nothing but more children, and suck of the government teat.
Throwing more money at a problem like this only works so long. The more money is thrown the more people want. That's how it works and how it's going to be forever. And each sucessive election shows them exactly how much power they have over us.
I just feel that the rich in this day and age (and, BTW, the government's level of who is "rich" is a joke. Maybe if you live in Arkansas or Tennessee would I consider what some of these people are making "rich") are being unjustly put upon. People seem to have no respect for their intelligence, but assume the only way they could have made the money was by stealing it. They seem to assume that because someone has created something that society/people value, society/people have a RIGHT to it for free.
A perfect example of this is to tax the rich, as we're doing. Now, we've got a lot of.com millionaires, including quite a number that made their money by working for a pre-IPO AOL. Now, the government wants to take taxes from these people and give vouchers to the poor to have access to the internet at a lower rate. So basically what has now happened is each of us paid our $20 to the ISP of our choice. Our ISP's got rich. They got taxed. Now some of those taxes are being used to let someone else on the Internet for $10 or $0/month. So basically, they're using OUR money. Our price is now artificially high, since if they had to pay the full price themselves, economies of scale would allow the price to drop. But because we're supporting these people, our price has to remain high while our access to the infrastructure becomes more and more strained.
And to be honest, one of the reasons I keep this job of mine is because I work for an ISP and get free Internet. If I did not have this option, it would be a choice between eating and surfing the web... Bet I'd still be surfing even if I had to start shining shoes in the evening to keep it. No one handed it to me, why should anyone else get handed it!
And that "Digital Divide" crap... I got on the Internet when I was working as a clerk in a bookstore making $9,000/yr. I lived in a 3 bedroom apartment with 4 roommates to make ends meet. And I got on the Internet. With my Apple IIgs. I did it that way because it was what I had to work with, and I wanted to learn the 'Net. Now I'm working for them, because I learned as a customer. If I could do it with no help in that situation.... Well, I guess other people can too.
The problem isn't that it's a choice of eat or surf. It's a problem of Cable TV or Surf, and most of them want their cable TV. I don't have cable because I can't afford it. I don't have a fancy car because I can't afford it. I don't have a swimming pool or a yatch because I can't afford it. I don't eat out every night, I don't buy steak at the supermarket. I don't buy soda because it's too expensive. I pinch every penny till Lincoln screams to make ends meet. And no one offers me any assistance. Except Mr. Bush is trying to get me back ~$2,000 of the money Washington takes from me every year.
You know the difference between a Democrat and a Republican? A Democrat says "Not you, but everyone else," a Republican says "If not you, then NO ONE else."
Either plan REQUIRES filtering. One requires filtering at a public place like a library and recommends such filtering for people that have children in the home. The other, championed by Gore, REQUIRES that the ISP, a for profit business, track everything that is done by their customers.
Hmmm... 6% isn't MUCH more likely. Of course, this is overall US, but it also doesn't include all 50 states in the abortion statistic. Plus, there's no such thing as an "Unknown" in the death penalty. It's still showing though that the chances the baby is black are pretty high up there.
As for the It's not much more likely to actually be guilty however comment, I'm suprised to see such an extreme religous person talking this way about abortion! Since it's obvious you must believe in Original Sin, and the Sin's of the Father being passed down generations by this comment... The child is innocent, until it's surroundings corrupt it.
Thru charity. Thru loans. Thru hard work. Thru scholarships. And you don't need to go to Harvard to make a million bucks. Plenty of people that I know of went to far lower colleges than that and make some pretty serious money.
Not only can people work for what they want, but they also don't always need it. I really think college is overemphasized these days. In many cases, it's just an overgrown kindergarden.
National Security - OK, I'll buy that one.
Police - Wealthy people tend to live in gated communities and the like and/or pay for thier own security systems. So they ARE paying more. Just not to the government.
Hospitals - Are not government funded. Period. The rich pay for thier own medical care out of their own pocket, not taxes, and the poor try to get a free ride.
Education - Most rich people pay more for their educational taxes, since they tend to own more property (most schools are funded by property taxes), send their children to PRIVATE schools, not paid for by the government, and are also taxed at a much higher level.
If I buy a Coke, it costs $.50. If the rich guy down the street buys a Coke, guess what, he pays $.50! If I buy a Cadillac, and so does the rich man, guess what, we pay the same for our cars! If we buy the same house, we pay the same money. Prices on services should not go up depending on who you are.
As for earning more from our society, suck it buddy. They don't EARN ANYTHING FROM SOCIETY! They provide a service/product that people want or need. They place it available for sale at what they consider a decent price. The people make a decision to buy or not buy the product. Society doesn't have anything to do with it! People do. If you long haired pointy headed left wing liberal freaks want to do something about that, get all your people together to boycott any business that makes more than say... $10 million per year. Save that money and grow your own food, etc. Sell to each other and don't buy from the rich. Guess what? If you do that, they won't keep making the money.
But don't say that because they produce a product or service that you want, they must somehow produce it for free. Or that they must somehow give you money back for buying it! If I wanted to do that I'd offer a damn rebate!
For that matter, why are you so worried? Why don't you just start buying all your products from China and the like? Sure, the fat cats lose money, but the government can take care of the workers, and after all, the slaves in the sweatshops of China need the money more than you decadent American workers.
I can make $1,000,000 and either save it or spend it. If I save it (ie: Place it in a bank or purchase durable items that have a resale value such as land, vehicles, stock, etc.), I have Wealth. If I spend it on non durable goods, (ie: Expensive food, travel around the world, gambling), I have high income, but low WEALTH.
We're talking apples and oranges here. I don't care what their percentage of WEALTH is, I want to know what their percentage of INCOME is!
The rich pay the majority of taxes to support the government. But it's that way on purpose. Those who benefit the most from government (i.e. the rich - don't even try to tell me that corporate protectionism and agencies like the FDIC, the FTC, and the SEC don't provide more to the rich than the SSA, Medicaid, and other social welfare programs do to the poor) deserve to pay the heavier share of its taxes.
Ummm.. FDIC doesn't really protect the rich. FDIC insures up to $100,000 I believe. The really rich have that much in their petty cash. The FTC actually makes it harder for businesses, because it stops unsavory business practices. It's more set up as a CONSUMER protection measure more than a BUSINESS protection measure. The SEC again mainly prevents people from sharing their inside information with others to help their friends make money at the expense of... drum roll please... LITTLE PEOPLE, who don't KNOW the CEO's of corporations.
I've been poor. Actually, by my standards I'm STILL poor. I have to make the choice every month of paying to see a doctor or paying the car payment. I have to make the choice of eating out or paying the rent. I get no government help. Nor do I want it! If we got rid of just the people that collect an income tax return, but do not PAY income tax, that would be a tremendous blessing to the true "working poor."
We're not passing them by so that Mr. Goldshorts (who's he? I've never met him...) can by his daughter another Lear jet. We're saying that Mr. Goldshorts deserves respect, credit, and happiness for the work he's put in to EARN his money. And in the process for all the money he's put into the economy hiring workers and buying products.
The cruelty is that people consistantly harm one another either financially or emotionally by making the ability to earn money a sin.
There is no responsibility for a government to help it's citizens financially. It is the government's responsibility to protect them from enemies, foriegn and domestic. It's their responsibility to make the laws fair so that all citizens are EQUAL before the law. Under no circumstances is it the government's responsibility to make sure they eat right, or have heat in their homes. That's charity. For that sort of thing, turn to churchs, foundations, and community help. Don't pick my pocket to pay for your children.
And it's not a tax break, it's a tax reduction. Maybe they don't need it, but they sure as hell deserve it.
True, almost everyone agrees that Al Gore has about twice the IQ of George W Bush, more experience and a much better idea what's going on. Some call him "overqualified the same way Spock was, to be captain of the Enterprise, and therefore unromantic, a rather unpalatable choice for those preferring the zing of human fallibility in their leaders.
I'd be interested in seeing some factual data on this. All the data I've seen says that Gore was the greasy grind in high school and college, while George sailed through without really having to struggle. And yet AlGore is considered the smarter of the two?
As they did under Ronald Reagan, these gray eminences will handle most decisions with utter seriousness. They are not scary madmen or boat-rockers.
And as they do under most Presidencies. The only difference is that the Gore side pushes for extreme left wing solutions, attempting to destroy traditional family values, heck, traditional VALUES, inequality through quotas, and a "We're smarter than you" attitude about everything from the environment to health care to spending your money. Ever notice you rarely see one of his "Real Citizen Advisors" talking?
Government will function either way. To a large degree (at least compared to past empires) it will leave us pretty much alone. Those of us in the middle class, that is.
Clinton/Gore has brought us Carnivore, CDA, COPPA, and other travesties of justice. They continually push the bounds to interfere in the upper, middle, AND lower class lives. They seem to attempt to make it a rule that what is not compulsory should be forbidden. Isn't it strange that these paragons of choice refuse to allow parents the right to choose how their children are educated? How people spend their money? How people spend their taxes? Who people associate with as friends? How they protect themselves against criminals? Why is it only that the NON-traditional have a choice in America under the Democrat's system? When do WE, the traditional, family oriented middle class get a choice? We have one this election, and it's a pretty clear one.
Clearly I care, and wish to influence your vote, speaking openly, as one citizen to another.
At least you're honest here. And I really do believe that you care.
Maybe because they are more practical, knowing that the next president will appoint at least three Supreme Court justices. I've seen quite a few buttons saying "It's the Supreme Court, Stupid."
That issue, alone, should eliminate any thought of voting Republican this year.
Actually, seeing the travesty Clinton/Gore has made of the Justice Department, do you REALLY want the Supreme Court to be made up of their nominees? Welcome to the police state, where the inmates run the asylum.
But there is another, far more important reason. It has to do with a blatant attempt at social engineering that none of us should like or put up with. An effort to fundamentally alter a social contract that has done very well by America and the West for several generations.
Right idea, wrong interpretation. You're right, people are trying to change the diamond. They change it by continually redistributing wealth. Funny how you complain about the sons and daughters of rich men getting their money, but you seem to have no problem with welfare. The truth of the matter is that Liberalism attempt to redistribute wealth by a Robin Hood method. Steal from the rich and give to the poor, and everyone will be equal. Can anyone say "Socialism?" Wasn't one of their tenets, "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs?" That's exactly the system you're proposing. Oh, you work hard and save your money. Therefore, you have ability, so you must contribute a larger share. But this man is poor and has no ability, so we will prop him up with your money, to make him feel more equal to you. Bah! I thought you Liberals liked Darwin? What ever happened to survival of the fittest? Or does that only matter when you're trying to get God out of the country?
As for foundations, you're right, that's a good thing. However, rich men and women deserve the same right to look after their children as anyone else. Or should we just get rid of inheritance all together? Should all estates go to the State for redistribution to the poor? That way EVERYONE can start off equal?
Here in the States you see the same movement at work. Lots of "Simple Tax Plans" take advantage of citizens' (justified!) anger at tax code complexity, pandering to that anger by pushing a National Sales Tax, with the chief effect of shifting the burden of taxation from the top of the diamond to the bottom. And the underlying agenda of turning that diamond into a pyramid once again.
No, the underlying goal is to make taxes FAIR. Fair means that we all pay the same percentage. No handicaps... Why should the smarter be handicapped by paying higher percentages of taxes, while the feeble are given the ability to consume without producing? And a National Sales Tax would be "fair" in every definition of the word. If I pay 10% on every item I consume, then I pay 10%. If I consume $1000/yr., I pay $100/yr. If I consume (because I'm rich) $1,000,000/yr, then I pay $100,000/yr. That's 1000 times more. And yet it is FAIR. The only way to make it politically neutral is to admit that each must pay an EQUAL percentage.
Now comes along George W. Bush with his grand plan to "cut taxes" in a manner that blatantly gives fully half of the benefits to the richest 1%. Delaying the payoff of our grandchildren's public debt for a decade, he'll use most of the budget surplus to achieve such wonders as completely repealing the inheritance tax.
As opposed to Al Gore, who give 5% of the American public any break at all. Mr. Bush is "cutting taxes" by CUTTING TAXES. The poorer classes will benefit MORE from Bush's plan than Al Gore's!
(Andrew Carnegie set aside a nice little fund to ensure his kids' comfort, then dedicated the bulk of his fortune to giving libraries to the poor, all over the world. He said -- "I'd rather leave my son a curse than the almighty dollar.")
And this was done in 1905 I believe. WELL before the Federal Income Tax was instituted in 1913. Isn't that funny? Before we had all these darn taxes, people still created Foundations! Why would that be??? Maybe because they wished to keep their memory alive after they were gone. And they will continue to do it, no matter what the tax laws. In fact, they may just INCREASE charitable contributions because they will have more money to do so with! Why is it that Andrew Carnegie (a robber baron if there ever was one) is set up by you to be a selfless human being, while the millionaires of today are set up to be money hungry scum? Learn a little history before you pontificate on these issues. The people's lot was FAR worse under these "humanitarians" of ages gone by.
No, I am not preaching class warfare... though that is exactly what you will get eventually, if the pyramid is restored.
Why yes, yes you are... You're saying that rich people are jerks that should GIVE everything away to the people, and if they don't, the government should be fully justified in TAKING it away. You people sicken me, not just because you say it, but because you actually seem to believe it. The USSR said they would bury us, and in a way they have. They may be gone, but their political shellgame of Communism and Socialism has taken over at least the Democratic Party of the US.
People, it's time to say no-thanks to those wanting to bring back the old social pyramid. The diamond deserves our loyalty.
You're right. Tell the people like AlGore that we will not allow them to bring the rest of us into poverty to raise the rest up. Tell them that people need to WORK to get ahead, not get handouts from Daddy Government. The social pyramid is not only economic, it's political. And the democrats are trying their hardest to put it back that way. Their elite on the top, and the common citizens far far below.
But alas, the diamond ain't stable, ladies and gents. The natural human tendency is for those with power to want more power.
And the democrats know that of the two, power is more important than money. They are continually trying to take the power AWAY from the lower and middle class, and put it in the hands of the people at the top. They don't WANT the "lower" classes to make any decisions. They are all knowing, and therefore all controlling. Forget what the people think, they'll TELL them what to think. And they've been doing it for many years. Your little sojurn into political theory right here proves it.
I accept the productive value of capitalism, when the market is a vibrant place for fair competition of goods & services. But if accumulations of wealth pass a certain point, capitalism will die and feudalism will replace it, as happened every other time there was a brief renaissance of competitive opportunity in human affairs. Seriously, name a bright era when that did not happen, shutting down opportunities and progress for centuries at a stretch.
Not quite. Actually, it dies and is replaced by Socialism. Ancient Rome fell when the people discovered bread and circuses. Not when people accumulated wealth. After capitalism comes socialism. When socialism fails, as it must, we come to the Dark Ages. Europe is back on its way there. Russia finally is getting out of it. And America is teetering on the brink.
They want to be lords. OUR lords. And we shouldn't let them. Merely as rich as Croesus, that's all they should get to be. Getting to be rich as Scrooge McDuck should be enough for anybody.
You're right, the Democrats do... Oh, I'm sorry, you were trying to say the REPUBLICANS do! Not exactly. They just want people to EARN their place, not be given it by a government fiat.
Oh, pity their poor offspring, who must graduate from Andover or some other prep school knowing that now they have to go to university alongside the bright scions of accountants and teachers and laborers!
Are you talking about the Republicans? Or the entertainment industry, the Democrat political leadership, the trial lawyers, and the teachers of America? In each case, you keep making my point.
"What an outrage! That money's MINE, you hear? Do you have any idea how little ninety million dollars can buy, these days?"
You're right, the Democratic party of the American government DOES seem to be saying that all the time. Oh wait... Sorry...
There are fresh ideas out there! * Ideas about how markets can be used to help stimulate and promote sustainable occupancy of the planet without putting all our faith in bureaucrats or the almighty dollar. Ideas about how markets can be made more vibrant than ever, spurring innovation while helping forge a diamond that floats ever higher, carrying everybody on Earth upward with it.
Remember, even a diamond has a bottom point. No matter what, the bottom will always be there, and in some cases, it will be holding down the rest of the diamond. The more everyone has, the more expensive it becomes. It's called inflation, and it will always be with us.
Me, I ain't holding nothing when I vote for him. He's a geek, but a smart/nice one. We've done worse. Most of the time, in fact. A lot worse.
You're right... We have voted in worse. Bill Clinton. He's a geek wanna be, not a geek. He's not exceptionally bright by my academic standards, and frankly, he comes across as quite a mean SOB. He's all for class warfare and increasing the schism between American people. He's also about lying, cheating, and stealing to get your vote. There are people that will do anything for power, and he's one of them. Look at his own record in Tennessee. He's changed positions more often then some of his constituents change their shirts, although less than they change residences. He pushed through naturalization for criminals so that the Dems would have one million more Hispanics to vote for them. He takes money and increases the size of government and calls it a decrease. He takes money for one thing and spends it on another, in the process reducing military readiness. Al Gore and Company will do whatever it takes to get your vote. And after that, you don't matter. His whole record speaks volumes about that.
i'm just wondering how bad things (privacy, human rights) could be after 4 years under a very, very conservative president
Why do people still seem to think that conservative republican = bad for civil rights? Republicans helped CREATE civil rights in this country. Matter of fact, during the early struggle for freedom, Republicans fought for the civil rights of African Americans.
"This vision competed with the Democratic Party's politics of "redemption," which promised the restoration of white hegemony and "home rule" for Southern states" --Civil Rights Movement or Black Freedom Movement
Even Al Gore's father voted against Civil Rights legislation. Why do you people continually assume that a Democrat is better than a Republican for Civil Rights?
The last days of politics will come about the same time as Hades reaching 0C (32F). The reason is simple. Even if we go to a "True Democracy," all that will do is change which parties influence our thinking. Without politicians, it will simply be a matter of groups advertising directly for their own issues. Once this takes place, anarchy is right around the corner.
Right now, you can at least look at the politicians and see who is pulling their strings. Without politicians, you'll get 300,000 "opinions" from "ordinary" people. There's no way to verify if they're paid to think that way or really do think that way.
Perhaps a better way to fix the problem would be to take the Senate away from the people again. The original idea behind the Senate was that each State or Commonwealth's legislature would elect 2 reps to go to the Senate. In theory, these people would not be bound to a particular company or organization, since they would not have the need to spend huge amounts of cash on political campaigns. This would give a certain amount of balance to the US Congress. Right now, we have House and Senate members that are bought and paid for by special interests. These groups represent corporations, evironmental groups, unions, etc., who all want their merchandise (IE: Their rep) to vote their way on all issues. Is it any wonder the laws of the US don't follow the will of the people? A small group who purchases a legislator has more voice in government than the ordinary person. By returning the Senate to the original idea set forth by the framers of the Constitution, we would at least have a better chance of getting some true representation in the halls of Congress.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually I like the gardener analogy better. If the gardener shows up with a manual lawn mower (Think no engine, not "no auto power drive"), then yes, I just may insist he uses my tools, especially if I'm paying him by the hour.
:) For some reason, after the Exchange box went blooey, I don't think they ever bothered to put it back up. :)
If he shows up with an electric weed wacker (in say Gray-Out Davis's California), I just might insist that he use my gas powered model.
And if he expects ME to furnish the tools, he can make recommendations, but I have the final say. Maybe I don't think he really needs that $2000 John Deer lawn tractor, when I can pick up something similar for $1000 from a different manufacturer.
I give him creative license on how he cuts my yard, within limits defined by a very broad program (I want it cut neatly and trimmed nicely), but I don't surrender all control just because he is the Artiste!
It's the same for documents. Yes, MS Office documents are evil. I despise HTML mail. And Exchange and Notes vie for which one earns my utmost contempt. However, if the majority of the workers are using these tools, best I find a way to work around them. Sometimes it's even necessary to humor someone in power.
I worked at an ISP. We had perfectly decent Linux and BSD boxen doing the mail and web services. Our programmers were all Unix. However, because 2 management personel didn't use Linux on a day to day basis, we had the pleasure of installing an Exchange box and an IIS box for the Internal network. Thank god IMAP can even work with an Exchange server. As for the IIS, I think all that was ever there were memos and schedules from Management. And I thanked God that Exchange went down right AFTER I quit.
But to be honest, right now I would kill for a job there again. Even though they had some crazy rules, at least management wasn't lying to us constantly and trying to screw us every time we turned around. I found a job in corporate IT and found out that the grass really ISN'T always greener.
And let's not forget the German's with Deutsche Bank, and the Japanese with Fuji Bank, etc. There's a reason why it was called the WORLD Trade Center, and there's a very good reason why the UN Security Council and NATO, as well as Russia, Japan, Israel, etc. are upset.
Israel is our only true Ally in that region. They are fighting for their lives against animals that attempt to totally destroy their way of life. We now have a feeling for what they have been going through for years. We have lost 2 large office buildings with massive loss of life, an attack on the Pentagon, and another plane that was heading for DC for another major target, such as the Capitol Building, the White House, or other symbols of American freedom.
Israel has seen Disco's and restraunts blown up by these same madmen. They have seen their people destroyed, for no more reason than they got in Germany in WWII. Because of their religion. They have attempted to live with these animals and treat them as human. They have been attacked repeatedly because of this.
Instead of cutting loose, we need to make it clear that this attack has strengthened our resolve. We should be backing Israel 200%, and helping them search and destroy the terrorist cells in the West Bank. Palestine should not exist as of this moment.
Israel did not do this, and they did not encourage it. By pulling the plug we give the bastards what they want. Instead, we should be teaching them a valuable lesson. They have awakened a sleeping giant that will use the full power of it's might to totally destroy the perpetrators of these heinous acts.
I won't go so far as to what was said in WWII, but it's pretty close. To paraphrase a great American, after today, the language of terror should only be spoken in hell.
The purpose of these animals is to bring attention to their "cause." Doing this terrible act without any way of it being identified as their work would totally remove the "usefullness" of their work.
As for the person who said "We have to be nicer..." No! We need to show these animals that the helping hand we currently extend can be turned into a fist very easily. Palestine celebrated over this attack. Palestine should become a parking lot for Israel.
These people... No, I won't call them people, it gives them too much dignity. These ANIMALS have encouraged this for years, and in all that time we did nothing, feeling safe and secure. We no longer feel that way.
Destruction of the persons responsible is a good first step. Destruction of the nations that encourage this is an even better second step. Just as we put down a rabid animal, so too do these nations need to be put down permanently. These actions cannot be forgiven or forgotten.
We have been far too lenient with these animals in the past. We try to ascribe to them Western values. THEY DO NOT HAVE THEM! They are willing to destroy people in the name of Allah. They shall be punished.
During WWII, we did not worry about collateral damage. We kicked butt, and saved Europe. Perhaps now it is time to kick butt again, and save the Middle East. And if innocent people are killed, so be it. The other side has decided on the rules.
Actually, now by law they HAVE To have a recount. It's going to be a LONG day. If Bush loses, there's no way he's going to concede until after the Military votes come in, since those are usually Republican.
Actually, it's more directly equated to:
1) You hear the liquor store got robbed
2) You jump into your car and head over
3) Once there, you get out and walk over to the building
4) You rattle the front door to see if it's locked.
5) You rattle the back door to make sure it's locked too
6) You climb onto the roof and make sure the air ventilation shaft is properly secured.
7) You go into the sewer and check to make sure that no one tunnelled into the basement
8) You notice that a window is open in the back and try to climb through. You can't fit so you shimmy back out.
9) You go home and tell your buddies... I think they got in through the window.
You wonder why you get picked up by the cops. hel-LO. It is NOT his right to poke around someone else's system to see how it's secured. Nor is it his job. If he wants that job, put in a resume, don't just start doing the work.
You're right. Vote for Gore, the lesser half of Clinton-Gore, the people that brought you DMCA, UTICA, COPPA, CDA, Generalissimo Reno... Yeah, you're on the right track there!!! Whoo-hoo!
Seriously, I although I can sympathize, I really can't feel too bad about this particular case (other than that the Justice Department asked for and GOT search warrants on this flimsy of evidence). The reason why is that those of you crying a river for this poor soul would be the first calling the Fed's if you thought someone was attacking you. Well, maybe not all of you, but enough.
The pr0n issue is another story entirely. It's possible that they just wanted to make sure that the disks did not contain files related to the case (which is an OK thing to ask. These were burnt CD's), and mentioned that they better not contain kiddie pr0n, just possibly letting the guy know what the law is on that issue. Or maybe they wanted to see if it would appeal enough to the white house staff to get them a raise in the DOJ. Who knows? Regardless, HAD they found anything and taken it, the case would have been tossed out quite quickly on illegal search and seizure grounds.
PS: I believe, but am not 100% sure, that AlGore voted for Scalia. Does that mean that he APPROVES of this Judges actions? Guess you'd better not vote for him either. And, BTW, Scalia is actually appears to be a decent judge.
"I don't think its anybody elses right to force someone to bear a child and bring them into this world just because they believe it to be wrong to do otherwise."
/. land: Why is the woman's right to choose paramount? Where is the man's right to choose? If a man says, "This baby was a mistake. I'm not ready for this, nor can I afford this. I want an abortion." and the woman says no, he's stuck with HER CHOICE! He doesn't get a choice. He can't say that she HAS to get an abortion because it will ruin HIS life. It's all about HER!
This is typical of the poor reasoning skills of the "pro-choice" movement. If I have an apartment for rent and I want to start storing my own stuff in there, can I kill the inhabitants because "it isn't anybody else's right to force me to rent"? No, because that's irrelevant.
Here here!
An even better question for you males out there in
I'm a firm believer that if you believe in choice that you need to change the viewpoint of your own people.
All the following assume that a woman is pregnant and knows (or suspects) who the father is. If the mother wants an abortion and the father doesn't, the father must pay the mother a set amount of money for her time and trouble to have the child. Perhaps go by what host mothers are paid for people that can't carry a child to term. If the mother wants to keep the baby, and the father wants an abortion, the mother MUST renounce all claims against the father for financial support. In this case, the father will also never have custody of the child. Or for that matter even see it. If mother and father BOTH want an abortion, they split the cost 50-50. If neither wants an abortion, they do the civilized thing and either give the baby up for adoption or raise it.
There, that gives EVERYONE a choice, doesn't it?
(Where's the asbestos suit when you really need it... Oh wait, the government regulates that so much I can't buy one anymore...)
Hmmm... It seems like he was saying what I was. That insurance from the government isn't insurance. That what was really important was "Are people getting health care?" Not "Are people insured?"
I'd need to re-read it though, but in the context, coming after the diatribe by Gore about 15% not being insured, it appears to be saying that the folks from Washington are using insurance as a word in a different way than the rest of the US does. And I think from the context of that debate, he's right. Gore appears to be saying that we have to get 100% of the people "insured" and that we'll do this with government programs. But somehow that won't nationalize the health industry.
They didn't ignore it. They did one worse. They continually marginalized it. Had they ignored it, Clinton would have been out on his ear. Instead they repeated the lies about how everything was a personal matter.
You know, I just finished reading the tripe served up in this article about Character Assassination. It was laugh out loud funny! 4 stars out of 5. Oh wait, this guy was serious???
Someone in the IS department of UCLA, a noted liberal university in a noted liberal state, writes an article about character assassination praising Gore for not lying? Pardon me while I chuckle.
Further, he posts several of the lies, with LINKS TO ARTICLES! Oh My! Of course, the articles are to a left leaning Washington comedian. Not excessively proven to my satisfaction. Then, he insists on trying to assassinate the character of George Bush and company! What a laugh!
The media is CONSERVATIVE? What exactly are you smoking? This is the media that consistantly gives financial donations to the liberal left, consistantly underplays family values, and lets Clinton-Gore float on all their irregularities?
Had the media been conservative friend, Clinton would have been impeached and Gore would have ended up next on the chopping block. Both of them would have ended up in jail for their many schemes and lies, and the newly single Hillary Clinton would've been finding some other sucker to attach herself too.
During the entire impeachment trial, these suckers allowed this group of rogues to seduce them into getting them off the hook. "It's a personal matter." It is NOT a personal matter to have "relations" with an intern in the Oval Office. "It wasn't a fundraiser." Hmmm... Show up, promise support, get check. Naw... No funds were raised there. "I had a lot of ice tea and had to go to the bathroom a lot." Do we really want a President with a bladder the size of a pin head? He'll be in the can when the hotline rings!
No, the media is not conservative. It never has been and never will be. Remember that conservative thought is considered "old school" and the media considers itself the watchdog against the "oppression" that old school thinking supposedly brings. What has finally happened though are 2 major things. The media has finally figured out that AlGore and the Dems are playing them like chumps, which they sincerely don't like. The media has also started smelling the blood in the water as more and more of Gore's campaign turns into more and more tricks.
As for Bush's intelligence vs. Gore's, I would like again to see more so called evidence before I would EVER concede that point. It has been well documented that Bush routinely made A's, B's and C's, while Gore repeatedly got C's, D's, F's, and incompletes. And Gore is the smarter one? Perhaps you're upset because the media initially tried to do just that, question Bush's intelligence, and guess what, THE PUBLIC DOESN'T CARE! They don't care if people make grammar errors. Guess what, MOST PEOPLE MAKE GRAMMAR ERRORS! They don't care because they know they can trust the man to do the right thing. They trust him to hire people that know what their doing. They trust him to protect EVERYONE's rights, not just special groups.
I am interested in the insurance - that's a Washington term quote. Got a source on that? I'd like to see what the FULL quote is... If it came from my mouth it would have been something like: "Calling Welfare insurance... That's a Washington term." Hmmm... Makes sense to me... Another case of how words don't mean the same thing to the Clinton/Gore administration.
I'm not saying the abolition of taxes here. I'm saying a REDUCTION in the already LARGE amount I pay! And I'm not "rich." I'm dirt poor!
As for roads, they should be paid for under a fuel tax. Why should someone pay for a road that they do not use? Take a drug not recommended by the FDA? Happens all the time. You can buy 4 or 5 illegal drugs at the school right down the street.
Banks pretty much already decide what they want to charge. We the people can't even pass a law making it illegal for them to overcharge us to use the ATM! Utilities are also charging pretty much what they want, since they purchase polititians all the time...
What I want is for people to stop asking for handouts and start learning to do for themselves instead.
I choose not to have children, so I'm penalized at tax time (especially if AlGore gets in) by having to pay a higher percentage than a breeder. I work, so I'm fleeced to pay for someone else's food, drugs, smokes, booze, and cars. Perhaps if it wasn't quite so easy to scam the system I wouldn't be so upset about paying for it.
Let's CHANGE the welfare system in America:
1. Food stamps are used only for FOOD. Meat, bread, cheese, milk, lettuce. Make it so that people using my taxes to live can't get luxuries I can't afford. No soda, chips, candy, junk food, pizza, etc.
2. Anyone caught buying drugs, alcohol, or cigarettes while accepting food stamps should lose them.
3. Get rid of section eight housing. That is a rip off scam run by slumlords for the most part.
4. Give people an incentive to work. Change the draconian rules so that if someone gets assistance and gets a job, their health coverage isn't cut off until their job benefits kick in or they can make enough money to pay for it themselves.
5. Bring back the WPA! If you want a government check, you'll be doing government work. They can dig ditches, lay pavement, build bridges, and all at the same time get valuable work experience.
I'm not opposed to helping someone in a hard time. I am however opposed to generations living off the sweat of my brow. The problem is that the Democrats don't WANT people off the dole, nor do most social workers. If people get off the dole and start making their own money, they won't feel an urgent need to vote the Dems in for more bread and circuses. And social workers would have to go out and get honest jobs. And the other problem is when you have no incentive to work, and in fact could lose something you really need (ie: health insurance) by getting a job, why would you? There are many people on welfare that are only there because it pays their medical bills. And there are also many people that are on their because it's easier than working.
How about a tattoo that instead says "I feel no need to pay for YOUR share of government services" instead? That would be more honest.
Sorry... Just get tired of seeing nothing but Republican bashing on /. You'd think we all worked for Microsoft or something! :)
.com millionaires, including quite a number that made their money by working for a pre-IPO AOL. Now, the government wants to take taxes from these people and give vouchers to the poor to have access to the internet at a lower rate. So basically what has now happened is each of us paid our $20 to the ISP of our choice. Our ISP's got rich. They got taxed. Now some of those taxes are being used to let someone else on the Internet for $10 or $0/month. So basically, they're using OUR money. Our price is now artificially high, since if they had to pay the full price themselves, economies of scale would allow the price to drop. But because we're supporting these people, our price has to remain high while our access to the infrastructure becomes more and more strained.
I can agree to a certain extent. However, there is also the question of how much bread and circuses we vote for the masses to keep them quiet and entertained. There's an old say, "Once you pay Danegeld, you never get rid of the Dane." We the working people, both "rich" and "poor" have paid Danegeld for years in the form of welfare, Social Security, Medicare, Medicade, Free Lunch programs, foodstamps, etc. etc., that now we're never going to get rid of the Dane. We will always be stuck now with a large class of citizens that do nothing, produce nothing but more children, and suck of the government teat.
Throwing more money at a problem like this only works so long. The more money is thrown the more people want. That's how it works and how it's going to be forever. And each sucessive election shows them exactly how much power they have over us.
I just feel that the rich in this day and age (and, BTW, the government's level of who is "rich" is a joke. Maybe if you live in Arkansas or Tennessee would I consider what some of these people are making "rich") are being unjustly put upon. People seem to have no respect for their intelligence, but assume the only way they could have made the money was by stealing it. They seem to assume that because someone has created something that society/people value, society/people have a RIGHT to it for free.
A perfect example of this is to tax the rich, as we're doing. Now, we've got a lot of
And to be honest, one of the reasons I keep this job of mine is because I work for an ISP and get free Internet. If I did not have this option, it would be a choice between eating and surfing the web... Bet I'd still be surfing even if I had to start shining shoes in the evening to keep it. No one handed it to me, why should anyone else get handed it!
And that "Digital Divide" crap... I got on the Internet when I was working as a clerk in a bookstore making $9,000/yr. I lived in a 3 bedroom apartment with 4 roommates to make ends meet. And I got on the Internet. With my Apple IIgs. I did it that way because it was what I had to work with, and I wanted to learn the 'Net. Now I'm working for them, because I learned as a customer. If I could do it with no help in that situation.... Well, I guess other people can too.
The problem isn't that it's a choice of eat or surf. It's a problem of Cable TV or Surf, and most of them want their cable TV. I don't have cable because I can't afford it. I don't have a fancy car because I can't afford it. I don't have a swimming pool or a yatch because I can't afford it. I don't eat out every night, I don't buy steak at the supermarket. I don't buy soda because it's too expensive. I pinch every penny till Lincoln screams to make ends meet. And no one offers me any assistance. Except Mr. Bush is trying to get me back ~$2,000 of the money Washington takes from me every year.
You know the difference between a Democrat and a Republican? A Democrat says "Not you, but everyone else," a Republican says "If not you, then NO ONE else."
Either plan REQUIRES filtering. One requires filtering at a public place like a library and recommends such filtering for people that have children in the home. The other, championed by Gore, REQUIRES that the ISP, a for profit business, track everything that is done by their customers.
In 1995, 56 men were executed in the United States:
33 were white - 58.9%
22 were black - 39.3%
1 was Asian. - 1.8%
(Source: US Dept. of Justice)
In 1995, 605,376 abortions were performed in 34 US states:
349,857 were white - 57.8%
205,442 were black - 33.9%
32,357 were "other" - 5.3%
17,720 were "unknown" - 2.9%
(Source: Centers for Disease Control)
Hmmm... 6% isn't MUCH more likely. Of course, this is overall US, but it also doesn't include all 50 states in the abortion statistic. Plus, there's no such thing as an "Unknown" in the death penalty. It's still showing though that the chances the baby is black are pretty high up there.
As for the It's not much more likely to actually be guilty however comment, I'm suprised to see such an extreme religous person talking this way about abortion! Since it's obvious you must believe in Original Sin, and the Sin's of the Father being passed down generations by this comment... The child is innocent, until it's surroundings corrupt it.
Thru charity. Thru loans. Thru hard work. Thru scholarships. And you don't need to go to Harvard to make a million bucks. Plenty of people that I know of went to far lower colleges than that and make some pretty serious money.
Not only can people work for what they want, but they also don't always need it. I really think college is overemphasized these days. In many cases, it's just an overgrown kindergarden.
National Security - OK, I'll buy that one.
Police - Wealthy people tend to live in gated communities and the like and/or pay for thier own security systems. So they ARE paying more. Just not to the government.
Hospitals - Are not government funded. Period. The rich pay for thier own medical care out of their own pocket, not taxes, and the poor try to get a free ride.
Education - Most rich people pay more for their educational taxes, since they tend to own more property (most schools are funded by property taxes), send their children to PRIVATE schools, not paid for by the government, and are also taxed at a much higher level.
If I buy a Coke, it costs $.50. If the rich guy down the street buys a Coke, guess what, he pays $.50! If I buy a Cadillac, and so does the rich man, guess what, we pay the same for our cars! If we buy the same house, we pay the same money. Prices on services should not go up depending on who you are.
As for earning more from our society, suck it buddy. They don't EARN ANYTHING FROM SOCIETY! They provide a service/product that people want or need. They place it available for sale at what they consider a decent price. The people make a decision to buy or not buy the product. Society doesn't have anything to do with it! People do. If you long haired pointy headed left wing liberal freaks want to do something about that, get all your people together to boycott any business that makes more than say... $10 million per year. Save that money and grow your own food, etc. Sell to each other and don't buy from the rich. Guess what? If you do that, they won't keep making the money.
But don't say that because they produce a product or service that you want, they must somehow produce it for free. Or that they must somehow give you money back for buying it! If I wanted to do that I'd offer a damn rebate!
For that matter, why are you so worried? Why don't you just start buying all your products from China and the like? Sure, the fat cats lose money, but the government can take care of the workers, and after all, the slaves in the sweatshops of China need the money more than you decadent American workers.
Wealth!=Income
Income!=Wealth
I can make $1,000,000 and either save it or spend it. If I save it (ie: Place it in a bank or purchase durable items that have a resale value such as land, vehicles, stock, etc.), I have Wealth. If I spend it on non durable goods, (ie: Expensive food, travel around the world, gambling), I have high income, but low WEALTH.
We're talking apples and oranges here. I don't care what their percentage of WEALTH is, I want to know what their percentage of INCOME is!
The rich pay the majority of taxes to support the government. But it's that way on purpose. Those who benefit the most from government (i.e. the rich - don't even try to tell me that corporate protectionism and agencies like the FDIC, the FTC, and the SEC don't provide more to the rich than the SSA, Medicaid, and other social welfare programs do to the poor) deserve to pay the heavier share of its taxes.
Ummm.. FDIC doesn't really protect the rich. FDIC insures up to $100,000 I believe. The really rich have that much in their petty cash. The FTC actually makes it harder for businesses, because it stops unsavory business practices. It's more set up as a CONSUMER protection measure more than a BUSINESS protection measure. The SEC again mainly prevents people from sharing their inside information with others to help their friends make money at the expense of... drum roll please... LITTLE PEOPLE, who don't KNOW the CEO's of corporations.
No clue why this got an "Insightful."
I've been poor. Actually, by my standards I'm STILL poor. I have to make the choice every month of paying to see a doctor or paying the car payment. I have to make the choice of eating out or paying the rent. I get no government help. Nor do I want it! If we got rid of just the people that collect an income tax return, but do not PAY income tax, that would be a tremendous blessing to the true "working poor."
We're not passing them by so that Mr. Goldshorts (who's he? I've never met him...) can by his daughter another Lear jet. We're saying that Mr. Goldshorts deserves respect, credit, and happiness for the work he's put in to EARN his money. And in the process for all the money he's put into the economy hiring workers and buying products.
The cruelty is that people consistantly harm one another either financially or emotionally by making the ability to earn money a sin.
There is no responsibility for a government to help it's citizens financially. It is the government's responsibility to protect them from enemies, foriegn and domestic. It's their responsibility to make the laws fair so that all citizens are EQUAL before the law. Under no circumstances is it the government's responsibility to make sure they eat right, or have heat in their homes. That's charity. For that sort of thing, turn to churchs, foundations, and community help. Don't pick my pocket to pay for your children.
And it's not a tax break, it's a tax reduction. Maybe they don't need it, but they sure as hell deserve it.
True, almost everyone agrees that Al Gore has about twice the IQ of George W Bush, more experience and a much better idea what's going on. Some call him "overqualified the same way Spock was, to be captain of the Enterprise, and therefore unromantic, a rather unpalatable choice for those preferring the zing of human fallibility in their leaders.
I'd be interested in seeing some factual data on this. All the data I've seen says that Gore was the greasy grind in high school and college, while George sailed through without really having to struggle. And yet AlGore is considered the smarter of the two?
As they did under Ronald Reagan, these gray eminences will handle most decisions with utter seriousness. They are not scary madmen or boat-rockers.
And as they do under most Presidencies. The only difference is that the Gore side pushes for extreme left wing solutions, attempting to destroy traditional family values, heck, traditional VALUES, inequality through quotas, and a "We're smarter than you" attitude about everything from the environment to health care to spending your money. Ever notice you rarely see one of his "Real Citizen Advisors" talking?
Government will function either way. To a large degree (at least compared to past empires) it will leave us pretty much alone. Those of us in the middle class, that is.
Clinton/Gore has brought us Carnivore, CDA, COPPA, and other travesties of justice. They continually push the bounds to interfere in the upper, middle, AND lower class lives. They seem to attempt to make it a rule that what is not compulsory should be forbidden. Isn't it strange that these paragons of choice refuse to allow parents the right to choose how their children are educated? How people spend their money? How people spend their taxes? Who people associate with as friends? How they protect themselves against criminals? Why is it only that the NON-traditional have a choice in America under the Democrat's system? When do WE, the traditional, family oriented middle class get a choice? We have one this election, and it's a pretty clear one.
Clearly I care, and wish to influence your vote, speaking openly, as one citizen to another.
At least you're honest here. And I really do believe that you care.
Maybe because they are more practical, knowing that the next president will appoint at least three Supreme Court justices. I've seen quite a few buttons saying "It's the Supreme Court, Stupid."
That issue, alone, should eliminate any thought of voting Republican this year.
Actually, seeing the travesty Clinton/Gore has made of the Justice Department, do you REALLY want the Supreme Court to be made up of their nominees? Welcome to the police state, where the inmates run the asylum.
But there is another, far more important reason. It has to do with a blatant attempt at social engineering that none of us should like or put up with. An effort to fundamentally alter a social contract that has done very well by America and the West for several generations.
Right idea, wrong interpretation. You're right, people are trying to change the diamond. They change it by continually redistributing wealth. Funny how you complain about the sons and daughters of rich men getting their money, but you seem to have no problem with welfare. The truth of the matter is that Liberalism attempt to redistribute wealth by a Robin Hood method. Steal from the rich and give to the poor, and everyone will be equal. Can anyone say "Socialism?" Wasn't one of their tenets, "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs?" That's exactly the system you're proposing. Oh, you work hard and save your money. Therefore, you have ability, so you must contribute a larger share. But this man is poor and has no ability, so we will prop him up with your money, to make him feel more equal to you. Bah! I thought you Liberals liked Darwin? What ever happened to survival of the fittest? Or does that only matter when you're trying to get God out of the country?
As for foundations, you're right, that's a good thing. However, rich men and women deserve the same right to look after their children as anyone else. Or should we just get rid of inheritance all together? Should all estates go to the State for redistribution to the poor? That way EVERYONE can start off equal?
Here in the States you see the same movement at work. Lots of "Simple Tax Plans" take advantage of citizens' (justified!) anger at tax code complexity, pandering to that anger by pushing a National Sales Tax, with the chief effect of shifting the burden of taxation from the top of the diamond to the bottom. And the underlying agenda of turning that diamond into a pyramid once again.
No, the underlying goal is to make taxes FAIR. Fair means that we all pay the same percentage. No handicaps... Why should the smarter be handicapped by paying higher percentages of taxes, while the feeble are given the ability to consume without producing? And a National Sales Tax would be "fair" in every definition of the word. If I pay 10% on every item I consume, then I pay 10%. If I consume $1000/yr., I pay $100/yr. If I consume (because I'm rich) $1,000,000/yr, then I pay $100,000/yr. That's 1000 times more. And yet it is FAIR. The only way to make it politically neutral is to admit that each must pay an EQUAL percentage.
Now comes along George W. Bush with his grand plan to "cut taxes" in a manner that blatantly gives fully half of the benefits to the richest 1%. Delaying the payoff of our grandchildren's public debt for a decade, he'll use most of the budget surplus to achieve such wonders as completely repealing the inheritance tax.
As opposed to Al Gore, who give 5% of the American public any break at all. Mr. Bush is "cutting taxes" by CUTTING TAXES. The poorer classes will benefit MORE from Bush's plan than Al Gore's!
(Andrew Carnegie set aside a nice little fund to ensure his kids' comfort, then dedicated the bulk of his fortune to giving libraries to the poor, all over the world. He said -- "I'd rather leave my son a curse than the almighty dollar.")
And this was done in 1905 I believe. WELL before the Federal Income Tax was instituted in 1913. Isn't that funny? Before we had all these darn taxes, people still created Foundations! Why would that be??? Maybe because they wished to keep their memory alive after they were gone. And they will continue to do it, no matter what the tax laws. In fact, they may just INCREASE charitable contributions because they will have more money to do so with! Why is it that Andrew Carnegie (a robber baron if there ever was one) is set up by you to be a selfless human being, while the millionaires of today are set up to be money hungry scum? Learn a little history before you pontificate on these issues. The people's lot was FAR worse under these "humanitarians" of ages gone by.
No, I am not preaching class warfare... though that is exactly what you will get eventually, if the pyramid is restored.
Why yes, yes you are... You're saying that rich people are jerks that should GIVE everything away to the people, and if they don't, the government should be fully justified in TAKING it away. You people sicken me, not just because you say it, but because you actually seem to believe it. The USSR said they would bury us, and in a way they have. They may be gone, but their political shellgame of Communism and Socialism has taken over at least the Democratic Party of the US.
People, it's time to say no-thanks to those wanting to bring back the old social pyramid. The diamond deserves our loyalty.
You're right. Tell the people like AlGore that we will not allow them to bring the rest of us into poverty to raise the rest up. Tell them that people need to WORK to get ahead, not get handouts from Daddy Government. The social pyramid is not only economic, it's political. And the democrats are trying their hardest to put it back that way. Their elite on the top, and the common citizens far far below.
But alas, the diamond ain't stable, ladies and gents. The natural human tendency is for those with power to want more power.
And the democrats know that of the two, power is more important than money. They are continually trying to take the power AWAY from the lower and middle class, and put it in the hands of the people at the top. They don't WANT the "lower" classes to make any decisions. They are all knowing, and therefore all controlling. Forget what the people think, they'll TELL them what to think. And they've been doing it for many years. Your little sojurn into political theory right here proves it.
I accept the productive value of capitalism, when the market is a vibrant place for fair competition of goods & services. But if accumulations of wealth pass a certain point, capitalism will die and feudalism will replace it, as happened every other time there was a brief renaissance of competitive opportunity in human affairs. Seriously, name a bright era when that did not happen, shutting down opportunities and progress for centuries at a stretch.
Not quite. Actually, it dies and is replaced by Socialism. Ancient Rome fell when the people discovered bread and circuses. Not when people accumulated wealth. After capitalism comes socialism. When socialism fails, as it must, we come to the Dark Ages. Europe is back on its way there. Russia finally is getting out of it. And America is teetering on the brink.
They want to be lords. OUR lords. And we shouldn't let them. Merely as rich as Croesus, that's all they should get to be. Getting to be rich as Scrooge McDuck should be enough for anybody.
You're right, the Democrats do... Oh, I'm sorry, you were trying to say the REPUBLICANS do! Not exactly. They just want people to EARN their place, not be given it by a government fiat.
Oh, pity their poor offspring, who must graduate from Andover or some other prep school knowing that now they have to go to university alongside the bright scions of accountants and teachers and laborers!
Are you talking about the Republicans? Or the entertainment industry, the Democrat political leadership, the trial lawyers, and the teachers of America? In each case, you keep making my point.
"What an outrage! That money's MINE, you hear? Do you have any idea how little ninety million dollars can buy, these days?"
You're right, the Democratic party of the American government DOES seem to be saying that all the time. Oh wait... Sorry...
There are fresh ideas out there! * Ideas about how markets can be used to help stimulate and promote sustainable occupancy of the planet without putting all our faith in bureaucrats or the almighty dollar. Ideas about how markets can be made more vibrant than ever, spurring innovation while helping forge a diamond that floats ever higher, carrying everybody on Earth upward with it.
Remember, even a diamond has a bottom point. No matter what, the bottom will always be there, and in some cases, it will be holding down the rest of the diamond. The more everyone has, the more expensive it becomes. It's called inflation, and it will always be with us.
Me, I ain't holding nothing when I vote for him. He's a geek, but a smart/nice one. We've done worse. Most of the time, in fact. A lot worse.
You're right... We have voted in worse. Bill Clinton. He's a geek wanna be, not a geek. He's not exceptionally bright by my academic standards, and frankly, he comes across as quite a mean SOB. He's all for class warfare and increasing the schism between American people. He's also about lying, cheating, and stealing to get your vote. There are people that will do anything for power, and he's one of them. Look at his own record in Tennessee. He's changed positions more often then some of his constituents change their shirts, although less than they change residences. He pushed through naturalization for criminals so that the Dems would have one million more Hispanics to vote for them. He takes money and increases the size of government and calls it a decrease. He takes money for one thing and spends it on another, in the process reducing military readiness. Al Gore and Company will do whatever it takes to get your vote. And after that, you don't matter. His whole record speaks volumes about that.
i'm just wondering how bad things (privacy, human rights) could be after 4 years under a very, very conservative president
Why do people still seem to think that conservative republican = bad for civil rights? Republicans helped CREATE civil rights in this country. Matter of fact, during the early struggle for freedom, Republicans fought for the civil rights of African Americans.
"This vision competed with the Democratic Party's politics of "redemption," which promised the restoration of white hegemony and "home rule" for Southern states" --Civil Rights Movement or Black Freedom Movement
Even Al Gore's father voted against Civil Rights legislation. Why do you people continually assume that a Democrat is better than a Republican for Civil Rights?
The last days of politics will come about the same time as Hades reaching 0C (32F). The reason is simple. Even if we go to a "True Democracy," all that will do is change which parties influence our thinking. Without politicians, it will simply be a matter of groups advertising directly for their own issues. Once this takes place, anarchy is right around the corner.
Right now, you can at least look at the politicians and see who is pulling their strings. Without politicians, you'll get 300,000 "opinions" from "ordinary" people. There's no way to verify if they're paid to think that way or really do think that way.
Perhaps a better way to fix the problem would be to take the Senate away from the people again. The original idea behind the Senate was that each State or Commonwealth's legislature would elect 2 reps to go to the Senate. In theory, these people would not be bound to a particular company or organization, since they would not have the need to spend huge amounts of cash on political campaigns. This would give a certain amount of balance to the US Congress. Right now, we have House and Senate members that are bought and paid for by special interests. These groups represent corporations, evironmental groups, unions, etc., who all want their merchandise (IE: Their rep) to vote their way on all issues. Is it any wonder the laws of the US don't follow the will of the people? A small group who purchases a legislator has more voice in government than the ordinary person. By returning the Senate to the original idea set forth by the framers of the Constitution, we would at least have a better chance of getting some true representation in the halls of Congress.