The top 1% of all households have nearly 30% of all the wealth; the top 5%, 55% of the wealth; and the top 20%, 80% of the wealth. http://minneapolisfed.org/research/qr/qr2122.pdf Between 1980 and 1999, the share of total taxable U.S. income earned by the top 5 percent rose from 21 percent to 34 percent. http://abcnews.go.com/sections/business/Tax2002/taxes_rich_020415.html I weep for the top 5%. It's just no fair.
Yes, I'm aware of certain basic mathematical truths. Howver, if you read my post in a thread from yesterday, it's not an "either-or" proposition. A payroll tax holiday (an idea that has been pushed by democrats AND republicans) would both provide a more effective stimulus AND not disproportionately benefit the rich as much as we got. Do some reading to figure out why, although there are valid arguments for and against on both sides. But my opinion is that, if you absolutely HAVE to have a tax cut, this is the best one to get. This doesn't even mention t he estate tax and the divident tax elimination, which were pure, interest group givewaways, plain and simple
Speaking of blind party loyalty, but is it me or does every Republican squarely ignore that GW's skills with regard to fine motor coordination of speech are not much better than those of an individual with severe proprioceptive disorder. While this clearly doesn't dictate any greater generalised loss of brain function it has to make one wonder, especially when coupled with his inability to maintain a clear boundry between words in the english language which are used by others and words in the english language which are exclusively his. In short, when I see Wesley Clark and listen to him speak inteligently on the issues, I see a man whom I generally respect for his cognative dicipline and vigor. I can therefore accept that he is a man who has opinions that most likely are compatable with mine. I look at GW, on the other hand, and see a bumbling, inarticulate fool. I naturally associate this type of behavior with that of the bumbling, inarticulate fools whom I know to be members of the hardcore, ideological, Rush-4Limbaugh-listening segment of the Republican Party. (I.E. Those who lack sufficent frontal lobe grey matter to be able to contimplate the world from any viewpoint but their own.) So yes, I'm riding Wesley Clark's jock. I'm doing so because he has demonstrated to me that he has all of the leadership qualities which have made the Republican Party so attractive since the turn of the century, while still embodying all of the depth of vision that has characterised the Democrats. I trust him as a man, be it Democrat, Republican, Facist, or Communist, and would therefore follow him where he leads.
BS, thanks for the tax chart. It was very interesting, and I learned a lot about the tax structure. But we'll have to agree to disagree. In crude terms, you think supply is more important than demand, and I think otherwise.
The bottom line is this: Who would you rather lead the country during a war? A former general, or a draft-dodging chickenhawk? It will be fun to watch Bush's rah-rah military patriotism be used as a weapon against him.
It has worked in history. It's one of the reasons we won the cold war. It wasn't because of U.S. invasions it was because many of the people behind iron curtain wanted to be like the U.S. It's leading by example and not force that has always been the best way to spread democracy. Obviously the ancient Greeks couldn't invade colonial America, but we liked the system and adapted it. Showing the benefits of democracy to other countries rather than forcing them down their throats at gun point seems more in line with what I consider democratic and American ideals anyway.
Clark could take Bush in a fight. He gets my vote. Besides, no self respecting Republican should ever vote for an AWOLing nepotism flunky over a self-made 4 star general.
Well said, FB And furthermore, isn't the war on terrorism more analogous to the cold war than to any other conventional war? We will win the war on terror by reducing the number of people that want to kill us, not by attacking countries that do not have a connection to the attacks which started the "War on Terror." We should be scrupulously aboveboard in our actions so that we can show that we really are on the side of truth, justice, and the American Way. We should embody the ideals of the republic we live in and spread those ideals through example, not force.
Good points FB and AM. I've always thought that this administration is way too excited about tactics and dismissive of strategy. The day after 9-11 was a missed opportunity that a better politician and strategic thinker (and a president not beholden to his staff) could have used to greatly enhance our standing and further the ideas we carried to the world over the previous 90 years. It's no accident Clinton was recently mobbed with well-wishers in Kosovo. Yes, bad things could happen if we left right now, but the ideas that brought us there give people hope. This administration knows the right spy satellite to download from, the right weapon to use, the right place to put ships, etc., but they are terribly deficient in telling us and the world why.
