If we (mostly North Americans) could end our love affair with huge, wasteful vehicles that more often than not are driven by only one person at a time, perhaps we wouldn't be in this situation now.
Yup blame whity, its not like to the fastest growning nations in the world both in terms of population and production are the two biggest comsumers of heavy polluting coal right (India and China). Maybe when the environmental movement dups there 'bitch about the us' attitude and puts something meaningful on the table thigs will get taken mroe seriously.
The other day I bougt bananna's 2 for one at the store, went back yesterday and the sale was over. What they did was promotion, and a damn fine job of it. Promotion does not nullify their ownership.
I disagree with the length of software patents, not the idea of software patents..
What you just said implies that you think Iraq (or Iran, N. Korea or anyone!) has the right to behave as they see fit. Thats a goood idea.
And if in the process of doing what they see fit they piss of another nation enough to declair war than so be it. And if other nations in the world are pissed enough by the war and they want to embargo so be it. Governments are put into place to serve those who put them there, *NOT* the other way around.
So Saddam had basically the entire world against him, all his neighbours, the Sanctions, all the UN resolutions etc etc. yet you say that:
Would that be the 'oil for food' sancations you were talking about?
Did they not have UN support for that? Broad international support?
Broad international support != a just war. UN Support != a just war. The fact is NATO bombed the hell out of a second world nation and in the process killed many civilians..
Peacekeeping soldiers who had to keep their hands behind their back and watch as Serbs rounded up muslim men for slaughter, because the UN wouldn't allow them to stop it.
Dont forget sitting by while the KLA has begun the ethnic cleansing of Kosovo, including the distruction of monistaries more than 1000 years old. I dont think many people know the full story on Kosovo and more mass graves have been found in Iraq but it was a 'popular' war with 'international support' so it was ok.
But the UN is what the world has, and the onus is on all countries to try to improve it.
Huh? if that were the case we would have the league of nations not the UN. The LON was scrapped because it was a useless buch a beaurocrats who did nothing (sound familiar?).
The problem with the UN is people insdie and many on the left want it to be a world government of sorts. Hell the UN is proposing taxing all gun sales in the world! what right do they have, not a one of them are elected by the people of their nation.
I am a strong nationalist, I believe if the people of Ireland dont want to own guns its their right to put in place a government to enforce it. I also believe that if the UN thinks the American people will tolerate a 'world tax' on anything they have been drinking out of the east river.
Textbook response, clearly showing that you have no respect for any nation other than your own. All this recent hoopla is nothing but US bashing
How does it show that? I dont think any nation should be beholden to the definitions put fourth by any other. I dont think Ireland should change its ways for the US, GB, France, Russia, China, or any number of nations.
You are saying that because all nations have done bad things in the past, we have no right to criticize the US when it does bad things?
Glass, House, Stone, Bingo... You can go after the people who do it, this nation bashing by the euro's is over the top though.
I am assuming you can back this statement up?
Its not much but the best I can do so quickly is: Results 1 - 10 of about 2,030,000 for bush war criminal. (0.54 seconds), and Results 1 - 10 of about 644,000 for saddam hussein war criminal. (0.30 seconds).
The Israel/Palestine issue, like the troubles in Northern Ireland is extremely complex, it is easy (and entirely justifiable) to make a case for either side. Both sides regularly break their own laws, and international laws.
And yet where is the outrage from the international community at the Palistinians from breaking international law. Arafat is more a war criminal than anyone can make a case for Bush being but when he went internationally was he arrested?
Do you honestly believe that the soldiers who committed these atrocities are the masterminds behind the routine practice of torture and degredation? Do you believe that the US is somehow not responsible for the actions of it's soldiers?
I think for the most part yes the soldiers were acting out of bordom, and lack of supervision. I think them and their commanding officers should be investigated but that does not happen over night.
You previously stated that you do not agree with the war in Iraq. So... you dont agree with it but you defend the US for having killed 15000 civillians by writing it all off:
No I never said I did not disagree with 'war' in Iraq I said I disagree with how the was was done. The was no declariation of war from the US senate and thus this war in unconstitutional (hence I did not vote for Bush). I also said that Iraq had been ignoring the terms of a cease fire and attempted to kill a former US president, so if it had been done right I would not, in princaple, oppse the war. I oppose how it was done
How can anyone justify any deaths? Really? Is it ok that 'fewer' people dies during the troubles? I did not see the calls of 'Clinton War Criminal' when he bombed Iraq in the late 1990's. I did not see NATO nations being called despotic imperialist for going into Kosovo so why is Iraq any different.
I did my duty as an American I voted against Bush *and* Kerry. Because they ignored the laws of the US and the oath they swore to uphold.
Blah Blah Blah, Everyone is living on land stolen from another people. Hell even among the Native American tribes there was war for territory (hunting grounds). In Europe from 500BC to 1500AD how many tribes were wiped out and moved somewhere else. Do you think everyone in Great Britton woke up one day and said 'I think we'll be English strating.... *now*'
You are utterly entrenched, why did you ignore all the other horrid things your country does? Breaks international laws and agreements, tacitly approves apalling human rights violations, tortures (mostly innocent) prisoners, and slaughters innocent civillians.
Because to be totally honest our nation is no more or less horrid than any other given our situation. Look at what England did to Ireland, Look at Japan to Korea. In the sixties five nations decided to invade Isreal and nobody screams *illegal war*. All this recent hoopla is nothing but US bashing because if anyone looks objectivly at their own history they will put down the stones and enjoy the view their glass house gives them.
Breaks international laws
International law is a joke, When Belguim put out a warrent for the arrest of US Government officials, and people in Canada call for tge arrest Bush it shows what a joke its become. There is more call for Bush and the US to be persecuted from the 'international community' than there was for Saddam. Look I did not vote for Bush and I disagree with Iraq but as far as wars go we have not been sub par in out execution of the war. International law say Isreal cand build a fence to keep suicide bombers out... A stinking Fence...
While I think the war in Iraq was illegal, I point to our constitution (not international law) to say that. The US was part of a war in 1991, and with others signed an agreement that if Iraq did x y z we would not attack. Well Iraq not only did x y z, they used the un 'oil for mone^H^H^H^H food' program to do it.
tacitly approves apalling human rights violations
Youre referring to?
tortures (mostly innocent) prisoners
And the people who did it are being punished, I think the first case is over and there is 15 years in prision.
and slaughters innocent civillians.
Please show me a nation who did not do that in a war. Did England commit warcrimes in WW2 by bombing Dresdon? The US pioneered smart bombs, we have spent a ton of money on 'Jdams' to convert conventional boms to be more accurate. We try damn hard not to kill civilians but well, war is hell. And when someone does cross the line they are prosecuted.
You are free in your country to own a handgun (and now assault rifles too is it?) and are trusted to use it properly, yet its a big deal if someone under the age of 21 drink a beer.
Something with wich I greatly disagree. The Drinking age should be 18 (the same as the voting age) but the Federal government decided to coerce the states (Drinking age is not set at the federal level, how much do you know of our laws?) into putting 21 as the standard.
How is that free? Are you free from the threat of violence, the fear of assault, or of murder?
I am free to own a weapon to protect myself. Do you really think that the problem is people who legally buy guns? I am sure often they do use them wrongly but the people who will shoot me on the corner will try damn hard to own a gun even if its illegal.
You called me a barbarian, and insinuated that I am ignorant.
And you started the whole spheel by calling someone a retard. But if it helps your feelings Im sorry.
I'm glad that you donate to charitable causes. I believe the people of my country give a larger proportion of their wealth to charities than the people of any other nation. You are correct to assume that your money does not show up as 'US Aid', nor does ours.
Do you have something to back up "I believe the people of my country give a larger proportion of their wealth to charities than the people of any other nation."
I just don't see why you should have a problem with the government raising taxes and changing laws, in order to give poor people a better quality of life (and a better chance at escaping the poverty trap).
Because we have this nifty little thing called freedom, in which I should be able to decide how to do things with my assets as I see fit. I am not *in princaple* against the government helping people, but it has to be done within the defined scope of the Governments power and at the federal level that is ver limited.
I assume you also think it is ok for your country not to give the UN recommended levels of foreign aid?
Of course I feel that way, the UN is a joke they can take their 'international courts' and suggestions and jump into the east river.
The paltry level of aid your country gives is just apalling.
Glad your using your freedom of expression, I dont have the numbers handy but Ill take your word that the US give less than the natios of europe. I will ask if your numbers include *private* giving. My small church took it upon themselves to build schools in Africa, that money does not show up as 'Us Aid'.
That is barbaric.
Im trying to keep this civil, if you can not do the same we have nothing further to say to each other..
So if *YOU* help poor people *YOU* are doing what *God* tells you, but if the government does then they are pinko commie fags, right?
If I help the poor I am going what I should do, If I point a gun at your head or threaten to put you in prision if you dont I am not doing what I should. Its a simple concept, pity you dont understand it..
And one could call you a hyprcrite for believing one has the right to kill an unborn baby yet not have the *choice* to decide who they will help and how.
Again I have explained myself on abortion on another thread, when dealing with the very life of a second human being is not all about *your* choice anymore than murder is. You may not agree with it but I think its a simple enough concept to understand..
Your numbers leave off that Bush created a new class of income that is taxed at 15%: dividends. Since many of the "rich," e.g. Theresa Heinz Kerry and Dick Cheney, get most of their income from investments, their *effective* tax rate has dropped precipitately. Those two actually pay a tax rate of about 13%...lower than those who make 14-56K in your list.
So long as income is being taxed a capital gains tax is unseemly. You tax the income, then you tax them again if they invest something of whats left and make out on it?
It is a valid criticism to say that the Bush tax cuts were slanted towards the rich (the rich pay most of the taxes, so a tax cut almost has to be slanted in favor of the rich). It's just not valid to say that they help *only* the rich.
Ignoring the fact the top 50% of wage earners pay 98% of the taxes is not valid. In reality the income tax has to be eliminated go to a straight sales/gains tax and fees for federal income.
Right, so it is dead wrong for the government to take care of poor people - even though it says in the Bible that you should, but it's dead right for the government to ban abortions...
Umm yes, The Bible tells *ME* to care for people not the Government. There is a serious lack of consideration for our fellow human beings today, this despite more social spending now than at any other point in history... why? Its because we never connect with people, we never voulenteer our time, skills, money, or even just talk to someone who might need it.
As far as Abortions go thats a compleatly different issue and I am not going to let you take me off this topic..
No I was hoping you realize that maybe, just maybe you should get off your duff and help people rather than hope mama government does it. People like you are too lazy to give of yourself so you demand others do it for you.
Go to the mall yourself and ask one of those 6 or 7 employees what kind of medical plan they have. Enough said.
On your advice I did just that, while at the mall shopping with my wife I ask at several places about the benefits they gave employees, you migh be suprised to find out many offer health insurance.
The fact that you meant a chain doesn't change the fact that those employees DO NOT recieve benefits, and realistically could not raise a family on that income alone.
Now I call BS, at minimum wage in most states two people working 40 hrs a week will make nearly 30K a year. My parents raised seven kids on not much more than that. It means driving beaters or using the bus. It means shopping at the GoodWill not Marshall Fields. It means no steak dinners, corn beef hash and veggies. It means endless hand me dows for toys, cloths, books, and movies. It means no cable and you get your 'rentals' from the library.
My sister and her husband are raising four kids on a little more than 30 and doing a bang up job. With proper spending you can even buy a home. There is a great article called
Poverty American Style, it worth the read but I will give you some highlights.
Forty-six per cent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one and a half baths, a garage and porch or patio.
The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens and other cities throughout Europe. (Note: These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries not to those classified as poor.)
Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 30% own two or more cars.
Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television. Over half own two or more color televisions. Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player. Sixty-two percent have cable or satellite TV reception.
So I dont ever buy the poor cant crap, I have lived it, I see some in my family live it. And the census itself shows that 'poverty' in america is not quite the dictionary definition.
I went to school on loans too, and scholarships. This doesn't change that the rich should not be given more tax-breaks in the current climate we are in today, economic and otherwise.
But its does mean you should stop crying that the poor can not afford to go to school, because they can!
This was the reason for my first post, if you have since learned to read. And no, not everyone can afford appropriate education.
Why? You did it and I did it on part time jobs, and loans. My parents were near retirement by the time I was in school so I ask for nothing from them, they gave up enough for me.
do you see what I mean when I say you have an ignorant point of view yet?!?
No I see a man who calls those who disagree with him retarded and ignorent. I see a man who did not answer my point about giveing from ones self and not getting the government to mug those you think shoudl give.
I started slinging an insult because I'm tired of the rich getting richer while the poor are uncontrollably getting poorer. Can you argue that this is just?
Why bother arguing if its just, its not true... Is it true the gap has changed? yes! is it true that the poor stay poor, no. I come from a poor family I now make enough that my wife does not have to work.
I don't think the Pizza Hut guy only makes 500,000 a year, but I could be wrong. And last time I checked 1 million was (well about twice as much) more than 500,000.
Oh so once again, you dont know but take your first impressions as Bible truth, what a suprise. The fact is he does not take home a million, neither does the guy who own $diner who employees six or seven people.
but wouldn't it be better if everyone could afford appropriate education
My point is everyone can! I got through school compleatly on loans and part time jobs.
I mean, isn't this the goal we should be aspiring towards, rather than making the poor even more unable to afford these things?
By all mean voulenteer, give money to college funds, free clinics. Voulenteer your time at soup kitchens, give give give. I give more than 10% of my pre tax salary to the poor every year. But it is dead wrong to expect the government to make people provide for other people, its dead wrong to force someone to care for someone else.
This nation got throught the great depression without federal welfare why do we need it now?
Home Depot had over 64 billion dollars in revenue (Jan 2004), I think it's safe to say the president (to whom you were referring--in context) makes more than 500,000 dollars a year.
I sad a store, not the chain. Go to a mall, look at all the people with jobs and ask youself how many of them work for the poor.
you are easily the most narrow-minded person i've seen in a while
Yes because I disagree with you, im narrow minded... Ill let that sink in.
do you know what an example is?
Sure my first job at a fast food place, the guy owned two stores and brought home about 300K a year. He was born with nothing and worked his way to wealthy.
did you know that there's more than one combination of events that make up different people's lives?
duh, im not the one who in the last post said: and give $10,000 to the rich guy who inherited daddy's fortune and lives by himself? News flash most rich people dont inherit daddys money.
And I really don't think that many individuals who earn 500,000 employ that many people, just a hunch.
And is there something to back this hunch up? Anything at all? Do you think the guy that owns a home depot franchise, or a pizza hut, or a sub-way, makes more than 1 million a year?
So take your 500 dollars and go give your kids health care, buy medicine, and send the to college with it.
Lets start with the fact college is not a right, I come from a poor family and I went to school on loans. No matter how much I make my kids will go on loans because its better for them to appreciate their education.
Just please stop being an ignorant fool by twisting my words and living in your tiny little world any longer.
Maybe just maybe if you thought for two seconds before you said:
are you a retard?!?
Bush cut the taxes on people earning ONE MILLION dollars a year, plus. Does that makes sense to you. If you earn ONE MILLION DOLLARS a year, net or gross, you are not a middle-class citizen. I will sleep better tonight or tomorrow if you just say your IQ is less than 80, otherwise...WTF is wrong with you!
You start byt slinging insults (later on to call me close minded) and imply that only millionairs got a tax cut under bush.
you lost me way back a while ago when you stopped reading my posts and kept talking about whatever world you live in; regardless, I'll bite...Is it fair to give $500 to an impoverished family and give $10,000 to the rich guy who inherited daddy's fortune and lives by himself?
Yes it is because:
1) Most rich people did not inherit their wealth, they work for it, take chances
2) The farmer alreay pays tens of thousands less in income tax
3) People money does not belong to the Government
4) Rich people dont sit on their money, they invest it
5) Chances are someone who would get back 10,000$ (and thus makes 500,000) either employees, or through stocks subsidizes someone who gets back 500$ (thus making 25,000)
From 2001 through 2005, the best-off one percent will receive "only" 19.8 percent of the Bush tax cuts.
By what measure? Percent per dollar, overall dollars? source?
By 2010, when all of the provisions of the bill--including complete repeal of the estate tax on extremely large estates--are scheduled to be fully in place, 51.8 percent of the tax cuts are targeted to the top one percent.
Are you aware that 'very large estates' include sub chapter s corporations? so if I run a small gas station and want to pass it to my kid should he have to pay half the worth of the station in taxes?
And the million dollar reference was for small businesses, sorry I wasn't more clear--but then again I can't help people from jumping to their own idiotic conclusions...
hmm and whom do small business employ?
Here are the facts:
Income taxes were cut across the board, and the wealthy still pay a higher % of their salary than the middle class.
The tax credits for kids apply to everyone
The estate tax will keep me from having to pay 40K on my mothers 80K worth of assets when she passes.
You said only millionairs got a tax cut under Bush which is compleatly wrong.
This time, and yse the reason I did not vote republican was because of their abuse. However under Clinton it was A republican congress who brought him kicking and screaming into welfare reform, and a balanced budget. Under Regan it was democrats who spent all the money.
Co a more accurate analysis would be of congress not the president but that does not make for simple charts aimed at simple minds...
As an American, I'd gladly pay 60% income tax if it meant I could get health care, good schools, low crime, lots of vacation, decent maternity leave for my wife, cheap higher education, and a social safety net if something should go wrong.
And as an American I can not, I guess we should have an election about this.. Wait we just did. The fact you think this is the federal governments job means you should move to a socialist nation and try your hand there.
As a Minnisotan, if Californians decided they want to pay a 60% state income tax to have better schools, low crime, good health care,..., the government to tuck you in at night, somebody to chew your food for you, a rocket powered sled, a free puppy, and a really comfortbale pair of shoes Im ok with that. But dont try to push a nanny state on me.
Slashdot Mirror
Yup blame whity, its not like to the fastest growning nations in the world both in terms of population and production are the two biggest comsumers of heavy polluting coal right (India and China). Maybe when the environmental movement dups there 'bitch about the us' attitude and puts something meaningful on the table thigs will get taken mroe seriously.
But people here are not talking about going to jail, they are breaking the law and then crying when somebody goes after them for it..
I disagree with the length of software patents, not the idea of software patents..
No, Civil disobediance would be using ogg and not MP3's.
Somebody mod this funny! great post..
If while replaceing the ram I smash the processor, I am not covered.. But if I replace the ram and later the processor goes again I am golden..
And if in the process of doing what they see fit they piss of another nation enough to declair war than so be it. And if other nations in the world are pissed enough by the war and they want to embargo so be it. Governments are put into place to serve those who put them there, *NOT* the other way around.
So Saddam had basically the entire world against him, all his neighbours, the Sanctions, all the UN resolutions etc etc. yet you say that:
Would that be the 'oil for food' sancations you were talking about?
Did they not have UN support for that? Broad international support?
Broad international support != a just war. UN Support != a just war. The fact is NATO bombed the hell out of a second world nation and in the process killed many civilians..
Peacekeeping soldiers who had to keep their hands behind their back and watch as Serbs rounded up muslim men for slaughter, because the UN wouldn't allow them to stop it.
Dont forget sitting by while the KLA has begun the ethnic cleansing of Kosovo, including the distruction of monistaries more than 1000 years old. I dont think many people know the full story on Kosovo and more mass graves have been found in Iraq but it was a 'popular' war with 'international support' so it was ok.
But the UN is what the world has, and the onus is on all countries to try to improve it.
Huh? if that were the case we would have the league of nations not the UN. The LON was scrapped because it was a useless buch a beaurocrats who did nothing (sound familiar?).
The problem with the UN is people insdie and many on the left want it to be a world government of sorts. Hell the UN is proposing taxing all gun sales in the world! what right do they have, not a one of them are elected by the people of their nation.
I am a strong nationalist, I believe if the people of Ireland dont want to own guns its their right to put in place a government to enforce it. I also believe that if the UN thinks the American people will tolerate a 'world tax' on anything they have been drinking out of the east river.
How does it show that? I dont think any nation should be beholden to the definitions put fourth by any other. I dont think Ireland should change its ways for the US, GB, France, Russia, China, or any number of nations.
You are saying that because all nations have done bad things in the past, we have no right to criticize the US when it does bad things?
Glass, House, Stone, Bingo... You can go after the people who do it, this nation bashing by the euro's is over the top though.
I am assuming you can back this statement up? Its not much but the best I can do so quickly is: Results 1 - 10 of about 2,030,000 for bush war criminal. (0.54 seconds), and Results 1 - 10 of about 644,000 for saddam hussein war criminal. (0.30 seconds).
The Israel/Palestine issue, like the troubles in Northern Ireland is extremely complex, it is easy (and entirely justifiable) to make a case for either side. Both sides regularly break their own laws, and international laws.
And yet where is the outrage from the international community at the Palistinians from breaking international law. Arafat is more a war criminal than anyone can make a case for Bush being but when he went internationally was he arrested?
Do you honestly believe that the soldiers who committed these atrocities are the masterminds behind the routine practice of torture and degredation? Do you believe that the US is somehow not responsible for the actions of it's soldiers?
I think for the most part yes the soldiers were acting out of bordom, and lack of supervision. I think them and their commanding officers should be investigated but that does not happen over night.
You previously stated that you do not agree with the war in Iraq. So... you dont agree with it but you defend the US for having killed 15000 civillians by writing it all off:
No I never said I did not disagree with 'war' in Iraq I said I disagree with how the was was done. The was no declariation of war from the US senate and thus this war in unconstitutional (hence I did not vote for Bush). I also said that Iraq had been ignoring the terms of a cease fire and attempted to kill a former US president, so if it had been done right I would not, in princaple, oppse the war. I oppose how it was done
How can anyone justify any deaths? Really? Is it ok that 'fewer' people dies during the troubles? I did not see the calls of 'Clinton War Criminal' when he bombed Iraq in the late 1990's. I did not see NATO nations being called despotic imperialist for going into Kosovo so why is Iraq any different.
I did my duty as an American I voted against Bush *and* Kerry. Because they ignored the laws of the US and the oath they swore to uphold.
Blah Blah Blah, Everyone is living on land stolen from another people. Hell even among the Native American tribes there was war for territory (hunting grounds). In Europe from 500BC to 1500AD how many tribes were wiped out and moved somewhere else. Do you think everyone in Great Britton woke up one day and said 'I think we'll be English strating .... *now*'
Because to be totally honest our nation is no more or less horrid than any other given our situation. Look at what England did to Ireland, Look at Japan to Korea. In the sixties five nations decided to invade Isreal and nobody screams *illegal war*. All this recent hoopla is nothing but US bashing because if anyone looks objectivly at their own history they will put down the stones and enjoy the view their glass house gives them.
Breaks international laws
International law is a joke, When Belguim put out a warrent for the arrest of US Government officials, and people in Canada call for tge arrest Bush it shows what a joke its become. There is more call for Bush and the US to be persecuted from the 'international community' than there was for Saddam. Look I did not vote for Bush and I disagree with Iraq but as far as wars go we have not been sub par in out execution of the war. International law say Isreal cand build a fence to keep suicide bombers out... A stinking Fence ...
While I think the war in Iraq was illegal, I point to our constitution (not international law) to say that. The US was part of a war in 1991, and with others signed an agreement that if Iraq did x y z we would not attack. Well Iraq not only did x y z, they used the un 'oil for mone^H^H^H^H food' program to do it.
tacitly approves apalling human rights violations
Youre referring to?
tortures (mostly innocent) prisoners
And the people who did it are being punished, I think the first case is over and there is 15 years in prision.
and slaughters innocent civillians.
Please show me a nation who did not do that in a war. Did England commit warcrimes in WW2 by bombing Dresdon? The US pioneered smart bombs, we have spent a ton of money on 'Jdams' to convert conventional boms to be more accurate. We try damn hard not to kill civilians but well, war is hell. And when someone does cross the line they are prosecuted.
Something with wich I greatly disagree. The Drinking age should be 18 (the same as the voting age) but the Federal government decided to coerce the states (Drinking age is not set at the federal level, how much do you know of our laws?) into putting 21 as the standard.
How is that free? Are you free from the threat of violence, the fear of assault, or of murder?
I am free to own a weapon to protect myself. Do you really think that the problem is people who legally buy guns? I am sure often they do use them wrongly but the people who will shoot me on the corner will try damn hard to own a gun even if its illegal.
You called me a barbarian, and insinuated that I am ignorant.
And you started the whole spheel by calling someone a retard. But if it helps your feelings Im sorry.
I'm glad that you donate to charitable causes. I believe the people of my country give a larger proportion of their wealth to charities than the people of any other nation. You are correct to assume that your money does not show up as 'US Aid', nor does ours.
Do you have something to back up "I believe the people of my country give a larger proportion of their wealth to charities than the people of any other nation."
Because we have this nifty little thing called freedom, in which I should be able to decide how to do things with my assets as I see fit. I am not *in princaple* against the government helping people, but it has to be done within the defined scope of the Governments power and at the federal level that is ver limited.
I assume you also think it is ok for your country not to give the UN recommended levels of foreign aid?
Of course I feel that way, the UN is a joke they can take their 'international courts' and suggestions and jump into the east river.
The paltry level of aid your country gives is just apalling.
Glad your using your freedom of expression, I dont have the numbers handy but Ill take your word that the US give less than the natios of europe. I will ask if your numbers include *private* giving. My small church took it upon themselves to build schools in Africa, that money does not show up as 'Us Aid'.
That is barbaric.
Im trying to keep this civil, if you can not do the same we have nothing further to say to each other..
If I help the poor I am going what I should do, If I point a gun at your head or threaten to put you in prision if you dont I am not doing what I should. Its a simple concept, pity you dont understand it..
Again I have explained myself on abortion on another thread, when dealing with the very life of a second human being is not all about *your* choice anymore than murder is. You may not agree with it but I think its a simple enough concept to understand..
So long as income is being taxed a capital gains tax is unseemly. You tax the income, then you tax them again if they invest something of whats left and make out on it?
It is a valid criticism to say that the Bush tax cuts were slanted towards the rich (the rich pay most of the taxes, so a tax cut almost has to be slanted in favor of the rich). It's just not valid to say that they help *only* the rich.
Ignoring the fact the top 50% of wage earners pay 98% of the taxes is not valid. In reality the income tax has to be eliminated go to a straight sales/gains tax and fees for federal income.
Umm yes, The Bible tells *ME* to care for people not the Government. There is a serious lack of consideration for our fellow human beings today, this despite more social spending now than at any other point in history... why? Its because we never connect with people, we never voulenteer our time, skills, money, or even just talk to someone who might need it.
As far as Abortions go thats a compleatly different issue and I am not going to let you take me off this topic..
No I was hoping you realize that maybe, just maybe you should get off your duff and help people rather than hope mama government does it. People like you are too lazy to give of yourself so you demand others do it for you.
Go to the mall yourself and ask one of those 6 or 7 employees what kind of medical plan they have. Enough said.
On your advice I did just that, while at the mall shopping with my wife I ask at several places about the benefits they gave employees, you migh be suprised to find out many offer health insurance.
The fact that you meant a chain doesn't change the fact that those employees DO NOT recieve benefits, and realistically could not raise a family on that income alone.
Now I call BS, at minimum wage in most states two people working 40 hrs a week will make nearly 30K a year. My parents raised seven kids on not much more than that. It means driving beaters or using the bus. It means shopping at the GoodWill not Marshall Fields. It means no steak dinners, corn beef hash and veggies. It means endless hand me dows for toys, cloths, books, and movies. It means no cable and you get your 'rentals' from the library.
My sister and her husband are raising four kids on a little more than 30 and doing a bang up job. With proper spending you can even buy a home. There is a great article called Poverty American Style, it worth the read but I will give you some highlights.
Forty-six per cent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one and a half baths, a garage and porch or patio.
The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens and other cities throughout Europe. (Note: These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries not to those classified as poor.)
Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 30% own two or more cars.
Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television. Over half own two or more color televisions. Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player. Sixty-two percent have cable or satellite TV reception.
So I dont ever buy the poor cant crap, I have lived it, I see some in my family live it. And the census itself shows that 'poverty' in america is not quite the dictionary definition. I went to school on loans too, and scholarships. This doesn't change that the rich should not be given more tax-breaks in the current climate we are in today, economic and otherwise.
But its does mean you should stop crying that the poor can not afford to go to school, because they can!
This was the reason for my first post, if you have since learned to read. And no, not everyone can afford appropriate education.
Why? You did it and I did it on part time jobs, and loans. My parents were near retirement by the time I was in school so I ask for nothing from them, they gave up enough for me.
do you see what I mean when I say you have an ignorant point of view yet?!?
No I see a man who calls those who disagree with him retarded and ignorent. I see a man who did not answer my point about giveing from ones self and not getting the government to mug those you think shoudl give.
Why bother arguing if its just, its not true... Is it true the gap has changed? yes! is it true that the poor stay poor, no. I come from a poor family I now make enough that my wife does not have to work.
I don't think the Pizza Hut guy only makes 500,000 a year, but I could be wrong. And last time I checked 1 million was (well about twice as much) more than 500,000.
Oh so once again, you dont know but take your first impressions as Bible truth, what a suprise. The fact is he does not take home a million, neither does the guy who own $diner who employees six or seven people.
but wouldn't it be better if everyone could afford appropriate education
My point is everyone can! I got through school compleatly on loans and part time jobs.
I mean, isn't this the goal we should be aspiring towards, rather than making the poor even more unable to afford these things?
By all mean voulenteer, give money to college funds, free clinics. Voulenteer your time at soup kitchens, give give give. I give more than 10% of my pre tax salary to the poor every year. But it is dead wrong to expect the government to make people provide for other people, its dead wrong to force someone to care for someone else.
This nation got throught the great depression without federal welfare why do we need it now?
Home Depot had over 64 billion dollars in revenue (Jan 2004), I think it's safe to say the president (to whom you were referring--in context) makes more than 500,000 dollars a year.
I sad a store, not the chain. Go to a mall, look at all the people with jobs and ask youself how many of them work for the poor.
Yes because I disagree with you, im narrow minded... Ill let that sink in.
do you know what an example is?
Sure my first job at a fast food place, the guy owned two stores and brought home about 300K a year. He was born with nothing and worked his way to wealthy.
did you know that there's more than one combination of events that make up different people's lives?
duh, im not the one who in the last post said: and give $10,000 to the rich guy who inherited daddy's fortune and lives by himself? News flash most rich people dont inherit daddys money.
And I really don't think that many individuals who earn 500,000 employ that many people, just a hunch.
And is there something to back this hunch up? Anything at all? Do you think the guy that owns a home depot franchise, or a pizza hut, or a sub-way, makes more than 1 million a year?
So take your 500 dollars and go give your kids health care, buy medicine, and send the to college with it.
Lets start with the fact college is not a right, I come from a poor family and I went to school on loans. No matter how much I make my kids will go on loans because its better for them to appreciate their education.
Just please stop being an ignorant fool by twisting my words and living in your tiny little world any longer.
Maybe just maybe if you thought for two seconds before you said:
are you a retard?!?
Bush cut the taxes on people earning ONE MILLION dollars a year, plus. Does that makes sense to you. If you earn ONE MILLION DOLLARS a year, net or gross, you are not a middle-class citizen. I will sleep better tonight or tomorrow if you just say your IQ is less than 80, otherwise...WTF is wrong with you!
You start byt slinging insults (later on to call me close minded) and imply that only millionairs got a tax cut under bush.
Yes it is because:
1) Most rich people did not inherit their wealth, they work for it, take chances
2) The farmer alreay pays tens of thousands less in income tax
3) People money does not belong to the Government
4) Rich people dont sit on their money, they invest it
5) Chances are someone who would get back 10,000$ (and thus makes 500,000) either employees, or through stocks subsidizes someone who gets back 500$ (thus making 25,000)
So If a rich person pays 36 cents out of every dollar and a middle class person pays 25 this is somehow unfair to the middle class??
By what measure? Percent per dollar, overall dollars? source?
By 2010, when all of the provisions of the bill--including complete repeal of the estate tax on extremely large estates--are scheduled to be fully in place, 51.8 percent of the tax cuts are targeted to the top one percent.
Are you aware that 'very large estates' include sub chapter s corporations? so if I run a small gas station and want to pass it to my kid should he have to pay half the worth of the station in taxes?
And the million dollar reference was for small businesses, sorry I wasn't more clear--but then again I can't help people from jumping to their own idiotic conclusions...
hmm and whom do small business employ?
Here are the facts:
Income taxes were cut across the board, and the wealthy still pay a higher % of their salary than the middle class.
The tax credits for kids apply to everyone
The estate tax will keep me from having to pay 40K on my mothers 80K worth of assets when she passes.
You said only millionairs got a tax cut under Bush which is compleatly wrong.
Can you site something saying what the average back was or are you just blowing smoke??
Co a more accurate analysis would be of congress not the president but that does not make for simple charts aimed at simple minds...
And as an American I can not, I guess we should have an election about this.. Wait we just did. The fact you think this is the federal governments job means you should move to a socialist nation and try your hand there.
As a Minnisotan, if Californians decided they want to pay a 60% state income tax to have better schools, low crime, good health care, ..., the government to tuck you in at night, somebody to chew your food for you, a rocket powered sled, a free puppy, and a really comfortbale pair of shoes Im ok with that. But dont try to push a nanny state on me.