[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.