President Bush

[bigred90gt]

Originally posted by xxxBlakexxx
When we buy foreign oil, we are putting money in the hands of those who want to kill us. Same is true for illegal drug users.

The drugs I did came from Mexico and Canada. I really dont think either one has the desire to kill us.

[Fulcrum]

We should have gone after Saddam the first time, but we didn't. I didn't agree with going in last year, something about it just didn't feel right to me. But I support our President and we did go in so now we just need to get it finished so the good people there can run there own problem's. I also agree with an earlier comment about the people themselves being the the real WMDs.
There have been alot of discussions about whether Bush lied, or his advisers lied, or about bad and unreliable intel. before we went in. The point is, now in hindsight, it needed to be done and the longer we waited the more at risk we would be. At least this way all the terrorists are going there to fight us instead of here. Yes, I know how selfish that sounds, but they wanted a fight with us and they were making sure they were going to get it, so it was better for us to decide when and where.
And folks before you cast your votes, I AM NOT A REPUBLICAN, but this time, i can't help but feel that a win for the democrates would be a victory of Osama. Look at Spain, a bomb, an election, he won a battle.

[RBatson]

I really don't know where to start.. "The rich pay the most in taxes" I am so sick of hearing that crap! I'm sure they do, they have most of the money. 34% of my wage is taken away before I ever see it! I get back around $2500 so that puts me in the 29% range that I actually pay in. I'll guarantee you the rich don't pay 29%. All I want is for everyone to pay thier fair share. If they were to pay thier fair share.. I wouldn't have to pay so much!! What's $20k to them?? Nothing!! Another thing, I have to pay interest on the money that I borrow from THEM! Credit cards, cars, house.. everything! Why shouldn't they pay thier 29% like what I do? I'd bet there wouldn't be a deficeit if they did.

I remember Mr 5 0 and I debating this back when it was going on and I still don't see where the $300 is stimulating the economy. If you want to get people to spend then all you have to do is make credit card and car interest tax deductible like it was back in the 70s. I'd be hitting the credit card up for everything.. I'd be spending, stimulating the economy. I'd probably even be persuaded to buy a new car. I wonder why they don't?? Well.. Hmm.. the rich wouldn't get a tax cut from that because they would pay cash for anything they got, unless there was a tax break involved. The working class has to finance everything.

As far as the price of oil, we have enought to float us way past the election. Maybe we want to keep our reserve, I understand that but doesn't Kuait have an abundance of oil?? Isn't that why we are in this mess to start with?? Hit Kuwait up!

Its my opinion that we shouldn't have helped Kuwait out in the first place. It was no business of ours. We did, so now we are in it. Iraq signed a treaty that they did not uphold.. NOW we got a problem. Although we shouldn't have helped Kuwait, let them settle it themselves, we have a country not upholding a treaty they agreed to. That is enough basis for force to me. It should have been handled the first time they refused to let the UN inspectors in and I sit and scratched my head wondering why we let it go. Seeing as Bush Sr. saw fit to butt into the region he should have finished it... All of America saw that, it was public opinion that we would have to deal with the crazy Saddam again.

Were we attacked because of our loyalty to Israel or because we let Iraq go on a long leash?? Would we have been attacked if Bush Sr. would have finished the job to start with? From what I heard on the news this morning, alot of countries are pulling out from the war. If we are going to deal with it, I think we should get our men out and deal with it, like we should have to start with.

[RBatson]

Originally posted by 1989GT
Well man you're all about the hot topics aren't ya...LOL.

Well, we ran out of things to talk about.

[Dark_5.0]

I will chime in on the oilfield debate since I also work in the industry.

West Texas has a whole lot of oilfield activity. The Gulf of Mexico isnt a huge factor in the grand scheme of things.

I have traveled the county going to different oilfields, its part of my job.

I was shocked when I went to the Oxy Elk Hills operation in Bakersfield California, Now thats a huge operation. The biggest oilfield in the US is in Kansas believe it or not.

The high oil prices are a direct result of OPEC cutting back oil production to raise up the price. Nothing more, Nothing less.

[jsams]

clinton had eight years to do something about saddom and what did he do besides play with monica.

[69fastback]

What made the war worth it for me anyway was seeing the smiling faces of the kids run up to you. Excited and cheering. I support Bush I think he has done a good job. Not many Presidents have had to deal with as much as he has in one term. The whole purpose of why Bush sent us over there was not on my mind. The only thing I had on my mind was going over there kick some butt and getting back to my family. I hope Bush is president again I will be voting for him. I just can't see Kerry being worth anything and I would sure hate to see what the world would be like if Gore would have won.

As far as WMD they are there.

[Dark_5.0]

Originally posted by 69fastback
What made the war worth it for me anyway was seeing the smiling faces of the kids run up to you. Excited and cheering. I support Bush I think he has done a good job. Not many Presidents have had to deal with as much as he has in one term. The whole purpose of why Bush sent us over there was not on my mind. The only thing I had on my mind was going over there kick some butt and getting back to my family. I hope Bush is president again I will be voting for him. I just can't see Kerry being worth anything and I would sure hate to see what the world would be like if Gore would have won.

As far as WMD they are there.

As far as I am concerned this guys opinion is the only one that matters. He has been in the s h i t, he knows first hand what it is like and he supports Bush.

Thank you for your service to our country.

[Mr 5 0]

Originally posted by RBatson :

I really don't know where to start.. "The rich pay the most in taxes" I am so sick of hearing that crap! I'm sure they do, they have most of the money. 34% of my wage is taken away before I ever see it! I get back around $2500 so that puts me in the 29% range that I actually pay in. I'll guarantee you the rich don't pay 29%. All I want is for everyone to pay thier fair share. If they were to pay thier fair share.. I wouldn't have to pay so much!! What's $20k to them?? Nothing!! Another thing, I have to pay interest on the money that I borrow from THEM! Credit cards, cars, house.. everything! Why shouldn't they pay thier 29% like what I do? I'd bet there wouldn't be a deficeit if they did.

I hardly know where to start with my reply to your misguided comments here but I suppose we'll just begin at the beginning.

Rick, it's an undeniable fact that latest IRS stats available (2001) show the top 10% of wage earners in the U.S. pay 64.89% of ALL the income taxes paid in the United States. The canard about the rich 'not paying their fair share' is simply not true but sounds good and makes some folks feel better, even if it's quite wrong. Rick, the federal deficit doesn't come from the American people not paying enough taxes, it comes from congress spending more money than they take in. That isn't the taxpayers fault. No one forces anyone to run up debt on credit cards and most people who do know full well about the high interest rates. Car loan interest rates as well as mortage rates are the lowest in modern history so there is no grounds for complaining on that point - if you're being realistic and not simply whining because you pay taxes and have debt.

I remember Mr 5 0 and I debating this back when it was going on and I still don't see where the $300 is stimulating the economy. If you want to get people to spend then all you have to do is make credit card and car interest tax deductible like it was back in the 70s. I'd be hitting the credit card up for everything.. I'd be spending, stimulating the economy. I'd probably even be persuaded to buy a new car. I wonder why they don't?? Well.. Hmm.. the rich wouldn't get a tax cut from that because they would pay cash for anything they got, unless there was a tax break involved. The working class has to finance everything.

The Bush tax cuts have manifested tax savings in the range of $2,500. or a family of four wiuth a middle-class income. The cuts also stimulated the economy by freeing up investor funds by taxing profits on capital gains at a lower amount. That's how jobs are ultimately created. I'm always a bit amused by people who seem to hate 'big business' but love jobs, as if 'jobs' were created by some kind of magic. Your idea that if credit card interest was deductable on the 1040, everyone would charge more and thus,, stimulate the economy is flawed. Right now, per capita (American) credit card debt is the highest in history. What makes you think that 'the rich' don't use credit cards and finance cars? Maybe Bill Gates, Warren Buffet and Donald Trump don't (who knows, really?) but most millionaires use credit cards, just like you and me but with much higher limits. It can be economically wise to finance a car, even a luxury car for $70,000., because the money paid back over three years may be worth less than the cash you would pay, today and the interest can sometimes be negotiated down to almost nothing. Ever see the 'zero interest' car ads? Those finance plans are available for 'the rich' as well as for us.

As far as the price of oil, we have enought to float us way past the election. Maybe we want to keep our reserve, I understand that but doesn't Kuait have an abundance of oil?? Isn't that why we are in this mess to start with?? Hit Kuwait up!

Saudi Arabia has promised top keep oil supplies flowing to the U.S. from their huge reserves. Of course, the minute they said this the Democrats snarled that President Bush was in some sort of collusion with the Saudi's in order to get re-elected, which was nonsense. So, if we have less oil and higher gas prices the left complains and blames President Bush. If we have plenty of oil and lower gas prices the Democrats complain and find a way to blame President Bush for something he didn't do. No wonder so many people don't take Democrats seriously anymore.

Its my opinion that we shouldn't have helped Kuwait out in the first place. It was no business of ours

That comment demonstrates an ignorance of the history and events leading up to 'Desert Storm' in early 1991. Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait on the pretext that as it was once part of Iraq (under the Ottoman Empire) it should be again. Of course, what he really wanted was the Kuwaiti oil. Iraq made short work of the Kuwaiti forces (they were near-defenseless) and was poised to invade neighbor Saudi Arabia. The Saudi monarchy, also with few serious military defenses, was frightened and begged the U.S. for help. We responded because at that point, Saddam Hussein controlled over 20% of the region's oil and if he invaded and defeated Saudi Arabia (easy job) he would control over 40% of the oil fields in the middle east and that kind of power (and money) in the hands of a madman who at the time had Weapons of Mass Destruction, was simply unthinkable. We had to act - and we did. No one else was going to do it, certainly not the joke armies of europe (Great Britain excluded). As the greatest military and economic power on earth it was America's responsibility and in our national interest to repulse Saddam Hussein's Iraqi army. Kuwait and Saudi Arabia were unable to defeat Iraq and were ripe for conquest. That could not happen. President Bush (41) understood that and didn't let it happen, to his everlasting credit. Now, as thanks, all he gets is griping from the 20/20 hindsighters about not removing Saddam Hussein in '91. Another case of: damned if you do and damned if you don't. Democrats, some who voted against the Gulf War in 1991, (like John Kerry) always want to have it both ways. Too bad. Life doesn't work like that.

We did, so now we are in it. Iraq signed a treaty that they did not uphold.. NOW we got a problem. Although we shouldn't have helped Kuwait, let them settle it themselves, we have a country not upholding a treaty they agreed to. That is enough basis for force to me. It should have been handled the first time they refused to let the UN inspectors in and I sit and scratched my head wondering why we let it go. Seeing as Bush Sr. saw fit to butt into the region he should have finished it... All of America saw that, it was public opinion that we would have to deal with the crazy Saddam again.

You seem to forget that, unlike now, we had a U.N. mandate to invade Iraq in 1991. That mandate did not include removing Saddam Hussein and although many people wished we had, even before 9/11, President Bush (41) feared a huge world outcry and charges of 'imperialist' if we went ahead and removed Saddam and his party from power. I can bet that the same Democrats who NOW say we should have removed Saddam would have had President G. H. W. Bush's head if he had tried, 13 years ago. In addition, then as now, American forces were not prepared for a long-range occupation in Iraq and we wouldf have had some of the exact same problems then, had we invaded Baghdad and removed Saddam Hussein.

Were we attacked because of our loyalty to Israel or because we let Iraq go on a long leash?? Would we have been attacked if Bush Sr. would have finished the job to start with? From what I heard on the news this morning, alot of countries are pulling out from the war. If we are going to deal with it, I think we should get our men out and deal with it, like we should have to start with.

U.S. support of Israel was a factor in the Islamists attacks but not a large one. In any case, America doesn't allow thugs with bombs to tell us who we'll support, do we? I think not, Rick. The U.S. troops will be in Iraq as a stabilizing presence for many years but once the Saddam loyalists and imported thugs from Iraq and Syria are defeated, as they will be, the country will fully stabilize. 75% of Iraq is now back to near-normal but the network news never bothers to mention that fact, of course. No fun there and they can't play the Prophets of Doom. Invading Iraq was a necessary military action and once the insurgents have been eliminated time will show that it was a very good move to make. Have some faith in our military who are serving and performing brilliantly, Rick. Meanwhile, don't believe everything you see on TV regarding Iraq and the war. It's going much better than you think and we are not going to cut and run, as we mistakenly did in Viet Nam, no matter what the liberals and naysayers want. We now have a real leader as our president and he isn't about to abandon the millions of Iraqis who have bet their lives on America's word. We will not go back on it, nor should we.

[Dark_5.0]

Originally posted by RBatson
I really don't know where to start.. "The rich pay the most in taxes" I am so sick of hearing that crap! I'm sure they do, they have most of the money. 34% of my wage is taken away before I ever see it! I get back around $2500 so that puts me in the 29% range that I actually pay in. I'll guarantee you the rich don't pay 29%. All I want is for everyone to pay thier fair share. If they were to pay thier fair share.. I wouldn't have to pay so much!! What's $20k to them?? Nothing!! Another thing, I have to pay interest on the money that I borrow from THEM! Credit cards, cars, house.. everything! Why shouldn't they pay thier 29% like what I do? I'd bet there wouldn't be a deficeit if they did.

I remember Mr 5 0 and I debating this back when it was going on and I still don't see where the $300 is stimulating the economy. If you want to get people to spend then all you have to do is make credit card and car interest tax deductible like it was back in the 70s. I'd be hitting the credit card up for everything.. I'd be spending, stimulating the economy. I'd probably even be persuaded to buy a new car. I wonder why they don't?? Well.. Hmm.. the rich wouldn't get a tax cut from that because they would pay cash for anything they got, unless there was a tax break involved. The working class has to finance everything.

As far as the price of oil, we have enought to float us way past the election. Maybe we want to keep our reserve, I understand that but doesn't Kuait have an abundance of oil?? Isn't that why we are in this mess to start with?? Hit Kuwait up!

Its my opinion that we shouldn't have helped Kuwait out in the first place. It was no business of ours. We did, so now we are in it. Iraq signed a treaty that they did not uphold.. NOW we got a problem. Although we shouldn't have helped Kuwait, let them settle it themselves, we have a country not upholding a treaty they agreed to. That is enough basis for force to me. It should have been handled the first time they refused to let the UN inspectors in and I sit and scratched my head wondering why we let it go. Seeing as Bush Sr. saw fit to butt into the region he should have finished it... All of America saw that, it was public opinion that we would have to deal with the crazy Saddam again.

Were we attacked because of our loyalty to Israel or because we let Iraq go on a long leash?? Would we have been attacked if Bush Sr. would have finished the job to start with? From what I heard on the news this morning, alot of countries are pulling out from the war. If we are going to deal with it, I think we should get our men out and deal with it, like we should have to start with.

That was the most deressing and dissapointing post I have ever read on the net.

It blows my mind that when a country led by a mad dictator invades a peace loving country some people say so what it isnt our problem.

What if we would have minded our own business with Hitler?

Being a coward never pays off it just delays the inevitable.

[RBatson]

Originally posted by jsams
clinton had eight years to do something about saddom and what did he do besides play with monica.

I agree, I think I mentioned Clinton should have done something.

[RBatson]

Originally posted by Mr 5 0

I hardly know where to start with my reply to your misguided comments here but I suppose we'll just begin at the beginning.

What took you so long?

Rick, it's an undeniable fact that latest IRS stats available (2001) show the top 10% of wage earners in the U.S. pay 64.89% of ALL the income taxes paid in the United States. The canard about the rich 'not paying their fair share' is simply not true but sounds good and makes some folks feel better, even if it's quite wrong. Rick, the federal deficit doesn't come from the American people not paying enough taxes, it comes from congress spending more money than they take in. That isn't the taxpayers fault.

As I said earlier, they have most of the money. They should be paying more than 64.89%. Let's not talk about what percentage of the American tax bill they pay, lets talk about what percentage of thier personal income they pay. Did you look at the link I posted?

No one forces anyone to run up debt on credit cards and most people who do know full well about the high interest rates.

How some folks mishandle thier money is not the issue.

Car loan interest rates as well as mortage rates are the lowest in modern history so there is no grounds for complaining on that point - if you're being realistic and not simply whining because you pay taxes and have debt.

Jim, mortage rates are not the lowest in modern history because things are going so great, its because things are going so bad. People are out of work. The car companies are enticing people with low to no interest rates because they are trying to sell cars, cars that would otherwise just sit on the lots.

The Bush tax cuts have manifested tax savings in the range of $2,500. or a family of four wiuth a middle-class income. The cuts also stimulated the economy by freeing up investor funds by taxing profits on capital gains at a lower amount. That's how jobs are ultimately created.

While I stand to benefit from the capital gains tax cut, who do you think benefits the most from it? The folks with the extra money to invest. The little bit I'm saving is nothing compared to the savings that those who really own America get. You know, the folks that own your house and car... not you specifically.

I'm always a bit amused by people who seem to hate 'big business' but love jobs, as if 'jobs' were created by some kind of magic.

I'm not against big business except when they get away with not paying thier share of taxes(loopholes), are screwing someone out of thier retirement, or unnecessarily polluting the environment that we have to live in. Maybe I do have a couple issues.

Your idea that if credit card interest was deductable on the 1040, everyone would charge more and thus,, stimulate the economy is flawed. Right now, per capita (American) credit card debt is the highest in history. What makes you think that 'the rich' don't use credit cards and finance cars? Maybe Bill Gates, Warren Buffet and Donald Trump don't (who knows, really?) but most millionaires use credit cards, just like you and me but with much higher limits.

I don't know any millionaires, that I know of. The only way financing a car makes since to me is if its a zero rate. Financing anything that you can pay cash for makes no sense to me .

It can be economically wise to finance a car, even a luxury car for $70,000., because the money paid back over three years may be worth less than the cash you would pay, today and the interest can sometimes be negotiated down to almost nothing.

Unless the interest rate is less than what you could receive on the money in an investment, I can't understand that. I'm still going over it in my head.. it will bother me until I understand.

Saudi Arabia has promised top keep oil supplies flowing to the U.S. from their huge reserves. Of course, the minute they said this the Democrats snarled that President Bush was in some sort of collusion with the Saudi's in order to get re-elected, which was nonsense. So, if we have less oil and higher gas prices the left complains and blames President Bush. If we have plenty of oil and lower gas prices the Democrats complain and find a way to blame President Bush for something he didn't do. No wonder so many people don't take Democrats seriously anymore.

I'm going to throw one that you like to use back at you.. How do you know this? The media?(Rush maybe?)

Why do the Republicans always point the finger at the Democrats and vise-versa? I don't take offense either way because as I've said before, I'm neither. I make up my own mind on issues.

When was the last time anyone complained about gas prices being low? I must have missed that..

That comment demonstrates an ignorance of the history and events leading up to 'Desert Storm' in early 1991. Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait on the pretext that as it was once part of Iraq (under the Ottoman Empire) it should be again. Of course, what he really wanted was the Kuwaiti oil. Iraq made short work of the Kuwaiti forces (they were near-defenseless) and was poised to invade neighbor Saudi Arabia. The Saudi monarchy, also with few serious military defenses, was frightened and begged the U.S. for help. We responded because at that point, Saddam Hussein controlled over 20% of the region's oil and if he invaded and defeated Saudi Arabia (easy job) he would control over 40% of the oil fields in the middle east and that kind of power (and money) in the hands of a madman who at the time had Weapons of Mass Destruction, was simply unthinkable. We had to act - and we did. No one else was going to do it, certainly not the joke armies of europe (Great Britain excluded). As the greatest military and economic power on earth it was America's responsibility and in our national interest to repulse Saddam Hussein's Iraqi army. Kuwait and Saudi Arabia were unable to defeat Iraq and were ripe for conquest. That could not happen. President Bush (41) understood that and didn't let it happen, to his everlasting credit.

Alot of people think we are crazy so I guess its ok if China sees fit to start bombing America because we are invading another country or because we have WMD. I guess my main question is, 'When are we going to stop being the world's police?'.

Now, as thanks, all he gets is griping from the 20/20 hindsighters about not removing Saddam Hussein in '91. Another case of: damned if you do and damned if you don't. Democrats, some who voted against the Gulf War in 1991, (like John Kerry) always want to have it both ways. Too bad. Life doesn't work like that.

Hindsight? I don't know anyone who didn't think we should have finished what we started, back in 1991. I do know people that didn't think we should have been involved in the first place, at the time. To tell you the truth, I'm actually glad people have opposing views.. it helps us see things from all angles.

You seem to forget that, unlike now, we had a U.N. mandate to invade Iraq in 1991. That mandate did not include removing Saddam Hussein and although many people wished we had, even before 9/11, President Bush (41) feared a huge world outcry and charges of 'imperialist' if we went ahead and removed Saddam and his party from power.

It wouldn't have been anywhere near as bad back then as now. As far as there being an outcry, people demostrate in other countrys now.. they didn't want us there to start with. I realize there is evil in the world but I have a problem with the idea of us knowing what is best for everyone. Thinking our way of life is right and forcing it on the rest of the world, I don't understand that. Maybe its right for us but who is to say its right for everyone else? That being said, I believe we live in the greatest country in the world.

I can bet that the same Democrats who NOW say we should have removed Saddam would have had President G. H. W. Bush's head if he had tried, 13 years ago. In addition, then as now, American forces were not prepared for a long-range occupation in Iraq and we wouldf have had some of the exact same problems then, had we invaded Baghdad and removed Saddam Hussein.

Why would they say that if they knew the UN mandate didn't include removing him? Because we should have or because we pretty much do what we want anyhow?

U.S. support of Israel was a factor in the Islamists attacks but not a large one. In any case, America doesn't allow thugs with bombs to tell us who we'll support, do we? I think not, Rick. The U.S. troops will be in Iraq as a stabilizing presence for many years but once the Saddam loyalists and imported thugs from Iraq and Syria are defeated, as they will be, the country will fully stabilize.

I agree

75% of Iraq is now back to near-normal but the network news never bothers to mention that fact, of course. No fun there and they can't play the Prophets of Doom. Invading Iraq was a necessary military action and once the insurgents have been eliminated time will show that it was a very good move to make. Have some faith in our military who are serving and performing brilliantly, Rick. Meanwhile, don't believe everything you see on TV regarding Iraq and the war. It's going much better than you think and we are not going to cut and run, as we mistakenly did in Viet Nam, no matter what the liberals and naysayers want. We now have a real leader as our president and he isn't about to abandon the millions of Iraqis who have bet their lives on America's word. We will not go back on it, nor should we.

I have full confidence in our military, I know we can handle it. Anyone who doesn't is delusional, in my opinion. I thank the military for the job they are doing and think they are doing great!

Jim, your hatred for Democrats is apparent. When was the last time you, yourself, ever agreed with anything a Democrat said or did? I'm just curious.

[RBatson]

Originally posted by Dark_5.0
As far as I am concerned this guys opinion is the only one that matters. He has been in the s h i t, he knows first hand what it is like and he supports Bush.

Thank you for your service to our country.

I understand your patrotism but this comment makes no sense to me.

[RBatson]

Originally posted by Dark_5.0
That was the most deressing and dissapointing post I have ever read on the net.

Sorry you feel that way.

It blows my mind that when a country led by a mad dictator invades a peace loving country some people say so what it isnt our problem.

Some think we are lead by a mad dictator.. maybe they have the right to attack. Oh wait, they did attack. Because we are mad or because they want us to let them take care of thier own problems? As I remember it, its because we don't mind our own business. The first thing they asked for was for us to leave the region and quit taking sides.

What if we would have minded our own business with Hitler?

I personally don't see it as the same thing with Hitler and if it was... why were so many countries against it?

Being a coward never pays off it just delays the inevitable.

How is it being a coward? We're not afraid, it was a conscience choice.

[Dark_5.0]

RBatson- Our views are so vastly different that i dont even have time to discuss it here at work.

But expect a damn reply when I get home

[RBatson]

I get the feeling that Jim is bringing the tar and you are bringing the feathers.. or are you guys going with hot coals and a rake?

I guess I've got something to look forward to tomorrow.

[Mr 5 0]

Originally posted by RBatson :

What took you so long?

Real life sometimes interferes with the time I have to spend posting on the net.

As I said earlier, they have most of the money. They should be paying more than 64.89%. Let's not talk about what percentage of the American tax bill they pay, lets talk about what percentage of thier personal income they pay. Did you look at the link I posted?

Yes. The usual leftist skewing of reality. Rick, the top marginal tax rate is now at 39%. That's the U.S. government taking, by force of law, almost 40% of a man or womans income - right off the top. We're not even counting the FICA tax here, which is 7.65%. That's legal robbery. Then, a majority of states have some state income tax, usually around 5% and the big cities, such as New York, have a city income tax, not to mention the property taxes every town and city has in place and of course, state sales tax in many localities. Most of these taxes cannot be escaped and a high-income person could well pay 50% of their income in taxes. Still, you think that's 'not enough?. You're dead wrong. If you think socialism is a great idea then you may favor this kind of taxpayer abuse but most of us know better. It's punishing success.

I'm not surprised that you don't want to talk about how much of the total income tax bill the rich actually pay as it undercuts your premise that the middle class 'pay all the taxes' while the 'rich' pay little. That's hogwash and always has been but the socialist/liberals in this country have been selling that class-envy routine for decades and many folks - who should know better - eat it up, as it makes them feel put-upon and gives them an 'enemy' to resent (the rich). Too bad it's based on false assumptions.

How some folks mishandle thier money is not the issue.

Neat sidestep Rick but you're not getting away that easily. It's me, remember? You complained about the fact that banks (who, I assume, represent 'the rich' to you) charge interest for loans and you seem to be saying that they shouldn't? That's absurd Rick and you know it. Banks today are mostly owned by stockholders, ordinary people for the most part, who simply want to make a profit. Profit is not a dirty word, Rick. It drives the fabulous American economy, the envy of the world. What you want is socialism. Oh, you may not say it or even realize it but your animus toward the wealthy makes it clear that you want others ('the rich') to pick up your tab and you want to call that 'fair' to make it seem better. It isn't. We have a progressive tax system and the more you make, the more you pay in taxes. The 'rich' pay plenty. Trouble is, congress spends more than we can pay. That isn't the fault of 'the rich' You seemed to want to just ignore that fact.

Jim, mortage rates are not the lowest in modern history because things are going so great, its because things are going so bad. People are out of work. The car companies are enticing people with low to no interest rates because they are trying to sell cars, cars that would otherwise just sit on the lots.

That's another absurdity. Where do you get this gloom-and-doom nonsense from? DU? Mortgage rates are the lowest in history because the economy is expanding rapidly, interest rates on bank funds is low and plenty of money is available to loan for homes and cars. The U.S. median income for a family of four is a bit over $42,000. The U.S,. is doing great and you try to pretend as if it's the Great Depression. That may play with the uninformed here Rick but you're simply wrong and on this 'declining economy' pose you choose to adopt. Very wrong.

While I stand to benefit from the capital gains tax cut, who do you think benefits the most from it? The folks with the extra money to invest. The little bit I'm saving is nothing compared to the savings that those who really own America get. You know, the folks that own your house and car... not you specifically.

Yes, people with big incomes see more savings when tax rates are lowered. You've found us out! Duh! Really, Rick, your class-envy is rather sad. Capitalism works beautifully and even the 'poor' in America are far better off than the poor in any other country. We have a huge middle class, living a life of luxury that other nations can only wish for and we have a large wealthy population,, the majority of them self-made people (not inherited wealth). Yet you want to whine that you have to pay taxes and that the 'rich' don't pay enough, even at 39%? That's unrealistic in the extreme.

I'm not against big business except when they get away with not paying thier share of taxes (loopholes), are screwing someone out of thier retirement, or unnecessarily polluting the environment that we have to live in. Maybe I do have a couple issues.

More than 'a couple'. You look at America: land of the free, home of the brave and one of the richest countries on earth and see nothing but 'problems'. How sad for you.

I don't know any millionaires, that I know of. The only way financing a car makes since to me is if its a zero rate. Financing anything that you can pay cash for makes no sense to me .

Unless the interest rate is less than what you could receive on the money in an investment, I can't understand that. I'm still going over it in my head.. it will bother me until I understand.

Most people don't have $20 - 25,000. or more in cash to lay out for a new car. I didn't say that it always makes sense to finance but with the very low-to-no interest rates on car loans, one would do well to take advantage of the deal. Millions have.

I'm going to throw one that you like to use back at you.. How do you know this? The media?(Rush maybe?)

It was in all the papers and on TV just days ago, Rick. Try to keep up.

Why do the Republicans always point the finger at the Democrats and vise-versa? I don't take offense either way because as I've said before, I'm neither. I make up my own mind on issues.

Because the two parties represent two very different political philosophies. When one party is in power, the other wants to find fault and blame it for anything negative in order to convince people that the party in power is wrong, corrupt and/or dangerous and must be replaced. That's partisan politics.

When was the last time anyone complained about gas prices being low? I must have missed that..

Apparently you miss a lot. The Democrats were trying to infer that President Bush is using increased Saudi oil exports to the U.S. to keep gas prices low so he'll be re-elected. Of course most Americans have no problem with that, only Democrat politicians.

Alot of people think we are crazy so I guess its ok if China sees fit to start bombing America because we are invading another country or because we have WMD. I guess my main question is, 'When are we going to stop being the world's police?'.

You seem to be ignoring the reality of the dire situation in Kuwait that I described. Rick, wake up. Please. America was attacked by Muslim terrorists on September 11, 2001. Almost 3,000 innocent people died. Since then, the Bush administration has been fighting back and doing so on many fronts, the invasion of Iraq being only one of them. The notion that we invade countries because we feel like it or want to play 'policeman' is ridiculous. America responded to an attack. What part of that do you still refuse to get?

Hindsight? I don't know anyone who didn't think we should have finished what we started, back in 1991. I do know people that didn't think we should have been involved in the first place, at the time. To tell you the truth, I'm actually glad people have opposing views.. it helps us see things from all angles.

Yes, hindsight. The same people who now claim that they would have supported taking Saddam Hussein out in 1991 were many of the same folks who lobbied against invading Iraq in 2003. "Oh, but that's different" they claim. No way. As for opposing views, yes, they help define issues and in Ameriac, we're free to express them. Works for me.

It wouldn't have been anywhere near as bad back then as now. As far as there being an outcry, people demostrate in other countrys now.. they didn't want us there to start with. I realize there is evil in the world but I have a problem with the idea of us knowing what is best for everyone. Thinking our way of life is right and forcing it on the rest of the world, I don't understand that. Maybe its right for us but who is to say its right for everyone else? That being said, I believe we live in the greatest country in the world.

Glad you think so but I still believe you want socialism in America, even if you don't realize it. In any case, this 'forcing our way of life on the rest of the world' line is bogus, Rick. Really. The vast majority of the world's countries are non-democratic. Many are run by dictators or communist thugs (China, Cuba, Viet Nam to name just a few). Democracy is a rare commodity in most of the world. In case you missed it: the U.S.-led Coalition is planning to turn the Iraqi government back over to Iraqis on June 30th. We do not covet land or 'force' democracy on anyone. When we bailed out on South Viet Nam in 1975, 2 million Vietmanese later died at the hands of the communist dictatorship we left intact. Somehow, I doubt the 2 million dead would have objected to democracy in their homeland. If Iraq doesn't want democracy, they will ultimately go back to a dictatorship, rape rooms, torture chambers and mass graves. Feel better? I hope not. Democracy represents what speaks to the heart of mankind: freedom. With real freedom (and a form of capitalism) the world would be a much safer and freer place, Rick.

Why would they say that if they knew the UN mandate didn't include removing him? Because we should have or because we pretty much do what we want anyhow?

We should have but we didn't because President Bush had no U.N. mandate to remove Saddam Hussein, only to drive the Iraqi army from Kuwait, which we did. That fact alone cuts down your premise that 'we do what we want, anyhow'. The liberals didn't think we should have been in Kuwait in the first place (Senator Kerry voted against it, remember?) and as the Democrats then controlled congress they would have made big problems for President Bush if he had sent our military into Baghdad to remove Saddam. Should we have? Of course. Few disagree on that....now.

I agree

Good. There's hope for you, yet.

I have full confidence in our military, I know we can handle it. Anyone who doesn't is delusional, in my opinion. I thank the military for the job they are doing and think they are doing great!

I agree.

Jim, your hatred for Democrats is apparent. When was the last time you, yourself, ever agreed with anything a Democrat said or did? I'm just curious.

1968, when LBJ declined to run for a second term.

Seriously; I find the liberal wing has taken over the Democrat party, they are becoming very leftist and I think that bodes poorly for America should a Democart be elected president again. They want ever-higher taxes, hate tax cuts (always 'for the rich') and seem to like to punish success. They try to solve every social 'problem' in sight and make most things worse when then try. Democrats vigorously supported a corrupt, lying (under oath) president - Bill Clinton - and still do. They are anti-capitalistic and want a socialist government in America. The Democrats are weak on defense and seem to actually be embarrassed at Americas wealth and military might, which I find ridiculous - and frustrating.

I could go on but you get the point, I trust. While I actually 'hate' no one, I believe the Democrat party is bad for this country should they ever attain power again, which is doubtful. Their leftist tilt has turned off many Americans; Democrat voter enrollment is declining (Republican enrollment is up) and I think we're headed for another four years of a Bush administration. Thank God.

[mustardjohn]

When you calculate the % take out the social security and medicare thoes are "pay roll" taxes not income tax. I think you will find after taking those out your percentage goes down. Unless you are making $200k+/year you are not paying 29%. If you are, you need to get a new person to figure your income taxes.

Pay roll taxes are not income taxes. Giving folks a break on those is how the Dems give "income" taxe returns to people that don't pay income tax.

If you are making 70k to 100k, you might be paying 20% income tax, maybe.

People making $200k are paying the payroll tax plus 28% income tax. If they are getting paid a salary, there is no way to hide it from the IRS. It gets paid (withdrawn). You can lie about deductions and get it back but the penalties are substantial if you get caught.

Also, why should the people that have the money give it to those that don't have it? Because the ones that don't have it want it? Thats cool. That is what I hear you saying when you say the rich should pay more.

[mustardjohn]

One more thing. When I hear people taking about "fair" or "feelings" these days I start running. Saying something isn't "fair" or they are not paying their "fair" share is a dead end argument. It is not logical and the argument won't be decided on rationality.

I hear this more and more by folks that don't have a leg to stand on other than to say its not fair or it is hurting someones feelings or self image. Last ditch effort to throw up an emotional barrier to hold back the entire crowd. Lets not have an honor roll cause it will leave someone out. Yeah like who?

Lets get the rich to pay their "fair" share. Which is all they have? If their are no rich who will pay more then? Sounds a bit socialist. When there is no incentive people don't succeed. Look at waht was found in East Germany compared to the west when the wall went down. Same genetics but a totally different outcome. Great experiment comparing socialism and capitalism and waht can happen in just 30 years of "fairness".

[mustardjohn]

Oh and lets let the rich pay more so the folks on welfare can get a cell phone so their self image won't be damaged by not having one. What would you do with all this tax money from the rich?