[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.