A Kerry quote - liberals, please explain
-
Jason Henderson wrote: The real boost comes from people re-investing that money Like these guys who really boosted the Taiwanese economy..[^] Jason Henderson wrote: Some invest in new employees In India perhaps?[^] Or maybe China?[^] Jason Henderson wrote: or improve their homes Sometimes very rich people probably will improve their homes. They may buy Danish furnitures, Oriental carpets and decorate with Italian designs. :) "After all it's just text at the end of the day. - Colin Davies "For example, when a VB programmer comes to my house, they may say 'does your pool need cleaning, sir ?' " - Christian Graus
I'm not talking about corporations. An individuals tax cut wouldn't make much of a difference in a corp., but it would to a small business owner. After Bush's last tax cuts, I renovated our bathroom. That's an investment in our home, which will increase the property and resale value. It has nothing to do with the furnishings.
"Live long and prosper." - Spock
Jason Henderson
blog -
Mike Mullikin wrote: Pretty soon we're redistributing everyones wealth across the board and motivation and productivity plummet. That's not even remotely what I said. I'm just saying that if there is a tax cut, the poor should get something back in similar proportion to the rich. Mike Mullikin wrote: Personally, I'd take the kids away (foster care or orphanages) and warehouse the adults. Absolutely no welfare for anybody who can't make an effort. Naturally this doesn't apply to the physically and mentally unable to work. I agree. Do you think we could do it ? Actually, I'd go one better. Anyone who doesn't have a job is chemically castrated. If you can't pay for them, you're not able to have them, they are a burden to society. Christian I have drunk the cool-aid and found it wan and bitter. - Chris Maunder
Christian Graus wrote: Anyone who doesn't have a job is chemically castrated. If you can't pay for them, you're not able to have them, they are a burden to society. :omg: I never thought I would hear from you such a totalitarian proposition! that's a mix between the T4 operation and the Stalinian "Article 58[^]" Unless you're trolling? :suss:
Fold With Us! "I hated going to weddings. All the grandmas would poke me saying "You're next". They stopped that when I started doing it to them at funerals."
-
Our poor pay virtually $0 in income taxes. They get robbed through sales, payroll, and the dreaded FICA (look it up). The idea of giving money back to people is not really to let them go out and blow it all on a new couch. If poor people paid any income taxes, and they got it back, most likely they would use all of it to buy stuff, which only marginally helps the economy. The real boost comes from people re-investing that money. Some invest in new employees and business expansion, while others buy stock, or improve their homes (investment in property). These things add much more money to the economy than Joe-Six-Pack buying a new TV.
"Live long and prosper." - Spock
Jason Henderson
blogJason Henderson wrote: which only marginally helps the economy Please demonstrate. Jason Henderson wrote: These things add much more money to the economy than Joe-Six-Pack buying a new TV. Joe-Six-Pack will probably buy his TV in a store near his location, "helping" the store owner. If this one has enough money to satisfy his needs, he will perhaps invest it. This money will then have a "double" use. On the other hand, tthe big investor will probably put his money in foreign markets (as Jan noticed), not in the US economy. Moreover, there's no proof (s)he will invest in stable and profitable operations, but (s)he may well speculate, helping then to destabilize the economy.
Fold With Us! "I hated going to weddings. All the grandmas would poke me saying "You're next". They stopped that when I started doing it to them at funerals."
-
Christian Graus wrote: Really ? So the poor should be left to die when they get sick ? Well, yes, sort of. Things honestly have a way of working out. The poor should be covered by insurance, not by public charity. I personally believe that the reason most of the people who do not have insurance do not have it because they choose to spend their money on things such as automobiles, TVs, Nike Air Jordans, etc. Which is to say they are make bad decisions. That covers a bunch. Many others can be considered to be poor because they simply choose to be. For example, I have a grandson, 22 years old, who chooses to work only 4 hours a day - called either part time or a "casual" worker. Luckily for him his part time job provides health insurance, but that is a happy accident for him. What he finds important is that he only works 4 hours per day. In other circumstances he, as would many others, would find a full time job or hustle a bit. There would also still be teaching hospitals that would provide less expensive care as a trade off for the risks of being a suject. As for teh rest, that is what family and not the government are for. Those that aren't covered by all of the situations I just covered, well they have made poor choices and why does that become my problem? I guess I believe in social Darwinism. Mike "liberals are being driven crazy by the fact that Bush is so popular with Americans, and thus by the realization that anyone to the left of center is utterly marginal." JAMES TRAUB NY Times "I don't want a president who is friends with France or Germany" Me "I plan to vote for Kerry before I vote against him." Me "There you go agin." RR
When I read all your posts, I'm more and more convinced the US isn't a nation but just a collection of selfish interests.
Fold With Us! "I hated going to weddings. All the grandmas would poke me saying "You're next". They stopped that when I started doing it to them at funerals."
-
When I read all your posts, I'm more and more convinced the US isn't a nation but just a collection of selfish interests.
Fold With Us! "I hated going to weddings. All the grandmas would poke me saying "You're next". They stopped that when I started doing it to them at funerals."
K(arl) wrote: just a collection of selfish interests. And France or any place else does not have selfish interests? Greed and selfishness is a universal human trait, not the domain of one nation or people. Go back are read what is being said. People should be responsible for themselves, they should take care of their needs first and not their wants. The expectation that society will pay for their needs so they can be selfish and only have to pay for their wants is what’s wrong. So who really is the selfish one here. Example: My best friends wife taught in the public schools in a low income area of town. The last year was just to much. 75% of her class was on subsidized food program (they had breakfast and lunch provided.) Most of the class (80-90%) said they had no money to buy pencils or paper so she did for them. At towards the end of the year a program to help reimburse teachers for these expenses was put in place (up to $250 dollars "refund") was offered. Her husband went back through the years receipts and accounted for over $4000 USD of expenses. She did not get anything back because by the time she submitted the request the next week the funds were gone (i.e. a lot of teachers were doing this.) Then the last week of school she had a problem with the class passing things. She stopped and picked up the items. They were Seasons Passes to 6 Flags (an expensive local amusement park), 100% of the class had them. So they could not pay for food or paper for school but could spend hundreds (I think about $275USD each) for fun. When asked how they can afford these and not paper one student said "Why should we, the teachers always do." To be honest they had been taught this way. So the kids spent the summer at the park and the teacher who had spend her money on food, paper, and her needs could not afford to. So who is selfish here? For myself I would add county public hospitals to the list to be paid for due to you do have a measurable element of the population that due to mental illness or whatever can not be responsible and take care of themselves. In doing so I except that some elements will be selfish and take advantage of this gift but I will tolerate that. I do not mind getting old. It beats all the other options that can think of.
-
K(arl) wrote: just a collection of selfish interests. And France or any place else does not have selfish interests? Greed and selfishness is a universal human trait, not the domain of one nation or people. Go back are read what is being said. People should be responsible for themselves, they should take care of their needs first and not their wants. The expectation that society will pay for their needs so they can be selfish and only have to pay for their wants is what’s wrong. So who really is the selfish one here. Example: My best friends wife taught in the public schools in a low income area of town. The last year was just to much. 75% of her class was on subsidized food program (they had breakfast and lunch provided.) Most of the class (80-90%) said they had no money to buy pencils or paper so she did for them. At towards the end of the year a program to help reimburse teachers for these expenses was put in place (up to $250 dollars "refund") was offered. Her husband went back through the years receipts and accounted for over $4000 USD of expenses. She did not get anything back because by the time she submitted the request the next week the funds were gone (i.e. a lot of teachers were doing this.) Then the last week of school she had a problem with the class passing things. She stopped and picked up the items. They were Seasons Passes to 6 Flags (an expensive local amusement park), 100% of the class had them. So they could not pay for food or paper for school but could spend hundreds (I think about $275USD each) for fun. When asked how they can afford these and not paper one student said "Why should we, the teachers always do." To be honest they had been taught this way. So the kids spent the summer at the park and the teacher who had spend her money on food, paper, and her needs could not afford to. So who is selfish here? For myself I would add county public hospitals to the list to be paid for due to you do have a measurable element of the population that due to mental illness or whatever can not be responsible and take care of themselves. In doing so I except that some elements will be selfish and take advantage of this gift but I will tolerate that. I do not mind getting old. It beats all the other options that can think of.
Michael A. Barnhart wrote: And France or any place else does not have selfish interests? If you mean are people here selfish, I would say yes, and more and more. If not, "we" wouldn't have elected a conservative president, or there wouldn't be so many abuses of the social protections Michael A. Barnhart wrote: People should be responsible for themselves, they should take care of their needs first and not their wants And a Nation should display solidarity towards its citizen, and not abandoning them when they are in need. Giving to its citizen the right to live is the less a Nation can do, and for this ensuring Health Care for anybody is IMO the first article of the social contract. WTF, "you" seem to consider people like to be poor, and are happy to live in shanty towns. Of course there are some abuses, some people live at the expense of the Society, but because of some bad apples, "you" are condemning everybody in that case. Michael A. Barnhart wrote: The expectation that society will pay for their needs so they can be selfish and only have to pay for their wants is what’s wrong. In a perfect world, I don't see the problem of the society fitting the needs of everybody? Did you never watch Star Trek? :-D Michael A. Barnhart wrote: So the kids spent the summer at the park and the teacher who had spend her money on food, paper, and her needs could not afford to. So who is selfish here? My first reaction is that it's sad the professors have to care about buying papers and pens, it shouldn't be part of their job. Next, to answer your question, the selfish ones are definitively the "profiters" (the ones who take profit), and these ones should be punished because they exploit the collectivity and endanger the whole system. Michael A. Barnhart wrote: To be honest they had been taught this way Exactly. Everything is about education.
Fold With Us! "I hated going to weddings. All the grandmas would poke me saying "You're next". They stopped that when I started doing it to them at funerals."
-
K(arl) wrote: just a collection of selfish interests. And France or any place else does not have selfish interests? Greed and selfishness is a universal human trait, not the domain of one nation or people. Go back are read what is being said. People should be responsible for themselves, they should take care of their needs first and not their wants. The expectation that society will pay for their needs so they can be selfish and only have to pay for their wants is what’s wrong. So who really is the selfish one here. Example: My best friends wife taught in the public schools in a low income area of town. The last year was just to much. 75% of her class was on subsidized food program (they had breakfast and lunch provided.) Most of the class (80-90%) said they had no money to buy pencils or paper so she did for them. At towards the end of the year a program to help reimburse teachers for these expenses was put in place (up to $250 dollars "refund") was offered. Her husband went back through the years receipts and accounted for over $4000 USD of expenses. She did not get anything back because by the time she submitted the request the next week the funds were gone (i.e. a lot of teachers were doing this.) Then the last week of school she had a problem with the class passing things. She stopped and picked up the items. They were Seasons Passes to 6 Flags (an expensive local amusement park), 100% of the class had them. So they could not pay for food or paper for school but could spend hundreds (I think about $275USD each) for fun. When asked how they can afford these and not paper one student said "Why should we, the teachers always do." To be honest they had been taught this way. So the kids spent the summer at the park and the teacher who had spend her money on food, paper, and her needs could not afford to. So who is selfish here? For myself I would add county public hospitals to the list to be paid for due to you do have a measurable element of the population that due to mental illness or whatever can not be responsible and take care of themselves. In doing so I except that some elements will be selfish and take advantage of this gift but I will tolerate that. I do not mind getting old. It beats all the other options that can think of.
Michael A. Barnhart wrote: When asked how they can afford these and not paper one student said "Why should we, the teachers always do." To be honest they had been taught this way. So the kids spent the summer at the park and the teacher who had spend her money on food, paper, and her needs could not afford to. So who is selfish here? And where could they probably have picked up that selfish behaviour? "After all it's just text at the end of the day. - Colin Davies "For example, when a VB programmer comes to my house, they may say 'does your pool need cleaning, sir ?' " - Christian Graus
-
Mike Mullikin wrote: The idea is that if people have more money, they spend more money. Which makes it pretty idiotic to make tax cuts for rich people only. When you allready got a Lambourghini, a Ferrari and a couple of VW Phaetons, I would believe that your'e allready spending as much as possible... Your answer, Im psychic you see (or was it Psychotic, hmmm...), is that they will invest those money. And some of them probably will. But when really rich people spends money nowadays, it's most probably in factories in Taiwan or China. "After all it's just text at the end of the day. - Colin Davies "For example, when a VB programmer comes to my house, they may say 'does your pool need cleaning, sir ?' " - Christian Graus
jan larsen wrote: Which makes it pretty idiotic to make tax cuts for rich people only. Don't beleive what the US democrats are saying. The Bush tax cut was NOT only for the rich. In the US the rich still pay a much higher federal income tax rate than the middle class and the poor pay nothing. jan larsen wrote: But when really rich people spends money nowadays, it's most probably in factories in Taiwan or China. Maybe the corporations do, but rarely individuals. P.S. When did you become an expert on the US tax system? :confused: "Reality is what refuses to go away when I stop believing in it." Philip K. Dick
-
jan larsen wrote: Which makes it pretty idiotic to make tax cuts for rich people only. Don't beleive what the US democrats are saying. The Bush tax cut was NOT only for the rich. In the US the rich still pay a much higher federal income tax rate than the middle class and the poor pay nothing. jan larsen wrote: But when really rich people spends money nowadays, it's most probably in factories in Taiwan or China. Maybe the corporations do, but rarely individuals. P.S. When did you become an expert on the US tax system? :confused: "Reality is what refuses to go away when I stop believing in it." Philip K. Dick
Mike Mullikin wrote: In the US the rich still pay a much higher federal income tax rate. Are they paying a higher percentage or how is it measured? Mike Mullikin wrote: and the poor pay nothing. And what should poor people pay and why? Mike Mullikin wrote: P.S. When did you become an expert on the US tax system? Can't say I ever indicated I was, but I guess that I'm just as big an expert in the US tax system as you're an expert in European nanny states :-) "After all it's just text at the end of the day. - Colin Davies "For example, when a VB programmer comes to my house, they may say 'does your pool need cleaning, sir ?' " - Christian Graus
-
Whenever governments cut tax, their income drops. As a result, they have less to spend. The theory is that government provides less for you, but you've got more to pay for your own stuff. So, if only the rich get a tax cut, the poor get less services, or a worse economy, and they get no benefit to offset this. We're coming up to an election in Australia, and both our governments seem to have forgotten this, and are keen to buy as many votes as possible. Which means interest rates will go up, which means that I'll have trouble with my plans to keep two houses. And on my income, no-one is going to give me a tax cut or rebate, so either way I lose. Christian I have drunk the cool-aid and found it wan and bitter. - Chris Maunder
Christian Graus wrote: Whenever governments cut tax, their income drops. As a result, they have less to spend. The theory is that government provides less for you, but you've got more to pay for your own stuff. So, if only the rich get a tax cut, the poor get less services, or a worse economy, and they get no benefit to offset this. That's one theory. Another theory that has merit in a corporate dominated economy like that of the United States is that when taxes are reduced for corporations and rich people they spend it on hiring more employees, capital projects, research & development, etc. The economy grows and as a result there is a net income gain for the government. I think the real problem is the widening gap between the upper and lower classes. The government can adjust tax rates (just like the Fed does with interest rates) to control the economy. I don't think there's a one size fits all tax bracket for every economic situation. There isn't a magical interest rate either.
-
I'm not talking about corporations. An individuals tax cut wouldn't make much of a difference in a corp., but it would to a small business owner. After Bush's last tax cuts, I renovated our bathroom. That's an investment in our home, which will increase the property and resale value. It has nothing to do with the furnishings.
"Live long and prosper." - Spock
Jason Henderson
blog -
Mike Mullikin wrote: In the US the rich still pay a much higher federal income tax rate. Are they paying a higher percentage or how is it measured? Mike Mullikin wrote: and the poor pay nothing. And what should poor people pay and why? Mike Mullikin wrote: P.S. When did you become an expert on the US tax system? Can't say I ever indicated I was, but I guess that I'm just as big an expert in the US tax system as you're an expert in European nanny states :-) "After all it's just text at the end of the day. - Colin Davies "For example, when a VB programmer comes to my house, they may say 'does your pool need cleaning, sir ?' " - Christian Graus
jan larsen wrote: Are they paying a higher percentage or how is it measured? The US federal income tax system (for individuals) calculates your "taxable income" by summing all of your income (with a few exceptons) then subtracting specific deductions. Deductions can vary but in nearly all cases the deductions are smaller or not available to the rich. The amount of "payable taxes" is determined by calculating a percentage of "taxable income" (percentages are higher for the rich [approx 36%] than they are for middle class [approx 28% to %15]) then subtracting any tax credits. Tax credits vary by circumstance but are generally not available to the rich or even upper-middle class. Hope this helps. jan larsen wrote: And what should poor people pay and why? I don't have a problem with the poor paying no taxes. I just think it is disingenuous for the left to cry about a tax cut not helping a group that is currently not paying taxes. In order to help these people there are two schools of thought. One says "Give them money and they'll be better off". The other says "Give them jobs to earn their money and they'll be better off". I support the latter view. jan larsen wrote: I'm just as big an expert in the US tax system as you're an expert in European nanny states Touche' :-O I suppose I deserved that. :) "Reality is what refuses to go away when I stop believing in it." Philip K. Dick
-
Where is Chris when I really need him? I just saw this quote from Kerry: Kerry said, "America's middle classes had suffered from the huge tax cuts that Bush had presided over and which Democrats say mainly benefit the most wealthy." Now, even if we assume as the Democrats contend that only the rich got a tax cut, just how would the middle classes suffer? I am a part of the middle class as are my 3 kids, my stepson, my 9 grandkids as well as my extended family. We haven't suffered becuase if the tax cut. Have you? Mike "liberals are being driven crazy by the fact that Bush is so popular with Americans, and thus by the realization that anyone to the left of center is utterly marginal." JAMES TRAUB NY Times "I don't want a president who is friends with France or Germany" Me "I plan to vote for Kerry before I vote against him." Me "There you go agin." RR
Basically, the Kerry quote is a fabrication, or at best a distortion of the truth. The Bush tax cuts actually shifthed the burden more to the rich (in terms of their total share), even though it gave the rich a proportionately larger reduction in their top marginal tax rate. See this[^] reasonably fair anaylisis of the pertinate CBO report (the same report Kerry referenced). It is also important to note that the Bush tax cuts increased significantly the amount of income subject to no taxes at all, which clearly benefits the poor more than anyone else. Notice that the bottom 40% of taxpayers actually get a stipend, rather than paying, after the Bush tax cuts. Power corrupts and PowerPoint corrupts absolutely. - Vint Cerf
-
Where is Chris when I really need him? I just saw this quote from Kerry: Kerry said, "America's middle classes had suffered from the huge tax cuts that Bush had presided over and which Democrats say mainly benefit the most wealthy." Now, even if we assume as the Democrats contend that only the rich got a tax cut, just how would the middle classes suffer? I am a part of the middle class as are my 3 kids, my stepson, my 9 grandkids as well as my extended family. We haven't suffered becuase if the tax cut. Have you? Mike "liberals are being driven crazy by the fact that Bush is so popular with Americans, and thus by the realization that anyone to the left of center is utterly marginal." JAMES TRAUB NY Times "I don't want a president who is friends with France or Germany" Me "I plan to vote for Kerry before I vote against him." Me "There you go agin." RR
Since the rich won't shoulder their share of the enormous deficit that the Bush regime is running up, someone else will have to, that would be the middle class. Rummie and his cronies were testifying a few days ago before Congress, about why they can't provide full health care benefits for reservists fighting in Iraq. It's because there's not enough money. Do you think that the guys dodging RPGs in Iraq are mostly rich, or middle-class? Most of our suffering will be down the road.
-
Whenever governments cut tax, their income drops. As a result, they have less to spend. The theory is that government provides less for you, but you've got more to pay for your own stuff. So, if only the rich get a tax cut, the poor get less services, or a worse economy, and they get no benefit to offset this. We're coming up to an election in Australia, and both our governments seem to have forgotten this, and are keen to buy as many votes as possible. Which means interest rates will go up, which means that I'll have trouble with my plans to keep two houses. And on my income, no-one is going to give me a tax cut or rebate, so either way I lose. Christian I have drunk the cool-aid and found it wan and bitter. - Chris Maunder
Christian Graus wrote: So, if only the rich get a tax cut, the poor get less services, or a worse economy, and they get no benefit to offset this. According to the quote though the middle class, which typically gets little government help, has suffered. This theory doesn't cover that. As an aside, I don't buy the theory either. I can't see how less money in the hands of the public causes a worse economy. The money is spent, whether as investment or a purchase of goods and services. it isn't like the wealthy are stupid enough to simply stockpile the "extra" money in a box under their mattress. They put it to work. It's how they generally got rich in the first place. BW The Biggest Loser
"Farm Donkey makes us laugh.
Farm Donkey hauls some ass."
-The Stoves -
Christian Graus wrote: Really ? So the poor should be left to die when they get sick ? Well, yes, sort of. Things honestly have a way of working out. The poor should be covered by insurance, not by public charity. I personally believe that the reason most of the people who do not have insurance do not have it because they choose to spend their money on things such as automobiles, TVs, Nike Air Jordans, etc. Which is to say they are make bad decisions. That covers a bunch. Many others can be considered to be poor because they simply choose to be. For example, I have a grandson, 22 years old, who chooses to work only 4 hours a day - called either part time or a "casual" worker. Luckily for him his part time job provides health insurance, but that is a happy accident for him. What he finds important is that he only works 4 hours per day. In other circumstances he, as would many others, would find a full time job or hustle a bit. There would also still be teaching hospitals that would provide less expensive care as a trade off for the risks of being a suject. As for teh rest, that is what family and not the government are for. Those that aren't covered by all of the situations I just covered, well they have made poor choices and why does that become my problem? I guess I believe in social Darwinism. Mike "liberals are being driven crazy by the fact that Bush is so popular with Americans, and thus by the realization that anyone to the left of center is utterly marginal." JAMES TRAUB NY Times "I don't want a president who is friends with France or Germany" Me "I plan to vote for Kerry before I vote against him." Me "There you go agin." RR
Quite a society you have build for yourself. The poor cannot afford decent living standards and food and probably get sick more. After that, they are left to die. No wonder you have so many fans. Pankaj /** I'm the one who's gonna have to die When it's time for me to die So let me live my life The way I want to - Jimi Hendrix */
-
As CG said, the money's gotta come from somewhere. Alternately, Gov'ts can cut spending... but that starts to get troublesome, doesn't it? My question is, why doesn't it bother you that tax cuts are being done at all? As i see it, there are really two possibilities - either they weren't really required in the first place (in which case someone should be 'fessing up or forced to take the fall for it), or there are favors being cashed in. :suss:
You**'re one microscopic cog** in his catastrophic plan...Shog9 wrote: Alternately, Gov'ts can cut spending As they should. Much spending is done to "cash in on favors" in the first place. Getting PAC support for re-election, etc.. There is not enough interest in the general public to montior spending though, and so it continues and noone will "take the fall". We are quickly roused during election time and given a few tidbits, but after a few weeks we get bored and tired and any hope of keeping tabs on our elected care takers honest wanes. BW The Biggest Loser
"Farm Donkey makes us laugh.
Farm Donkey hauls some ass."
-The Stoves -
Mike Gaskey wrote: Kerry said, "America's middle classes had suffered from the huge tax cuts that Bush had presided over and which Democrats say mainly benefit the most wealthy."...Now, even if we assume as the Democrats contend that only the rich got a tax cut, just how would the middle classes suffer? Mike, Mike, Mike... "Kerry said America's middle classes had suffered from the huge tax cuts that Bush had presided over and which Democrats say mainly benefit the most wealthy. " You need to quote your sources correctly if we are to take you seriously. This is a paraphrase from only one source I found http://www.news24.com/News24/World/US_Elections/0,,2-10-1665_1595887,00.html[^] Kerry didn't say those exact words. Who knows what he actually said so we could grasp his exact context and intended message.:doh: Besides, Kerry outlines his tax plan on his website and it seems like to me he is concerned more about creating jobs from specific corporate tax cuts. So if he did say the middle class suffered I guess it was because Bush didn't provide the correct tax cuts which would be Corporate tax cuts to create more jobs. Later, JoeSox CPMCv1.0 ↔ humanaiproject.org ↔ joeswammi.com/sinfest
JoeSox wrote: Mike, Mike, Mike... Joe, Joe, Joe - I took this directly from this link[^] Frankly I believe Kerry is saying anything he can to secure the election, I don't believe a word he says. Mike "liberals are being driven crazy by the fact that Bush is so popular with Americans, and thus by the realization that anyone to the left of center is utterly marginal." JAMES TRAUB NY Times "I don't want a president who is friends with France or Germany" Me "I plan to vote for Kerry before I vote against him." Me "There you go agin." RR
-
When I read all your posts, I'm more and more convinced the US isn't a nation but just a collection of selfish interests.
Fold With Us! "I hated going to weddings. All the grandmas would poke me saying "You're next". They stopped that when I started doing it to them at funerals."
K(arl) wrote: When I read all your posts, I'm more and more convinced the US isn't a nation but just a collection of selfish interests. It is a nation of individuals. That is the way and the reason we were founded and I wouldn't have it any other way. There were several attempts early in our history for communal style living, none of them worked. The early settlers were rugged individualists and the thread of that mindset continues on through today. What you miss (or I don't really communicate) is along with the notion of individualism is a sense of family where the family pulls together and helps one another, not the government. That, sadly, is changing - I just hope it doesn't change soon. Mike "liberals are being driven crazy by the fact that Bush is so popular with Americans, and thus by the realization that anyone to the left of center is utterly marginal." JAMES TRAUB NY Times "I don't want a president who is friends with France or Germany" Me "I plan to vote for Kerry before I vote against him." Me "There you go agin." RR
-
Quite a society you have build for yourself. The poor cannot afford decent living standards and food and probably get sick more. After that, they are left to die. No wonder you have so many fans. Pankaj /** I'm the one who's gonna have to die When it's time for me to die So let me live my life The way I want to - Jimi Hendrix */
pankajdaga wrote: Quite a society you have build for yourself. The poor cannot afford decent living standards and food and probably get sick more. After that, they are left to die. Quite a leap in logic here. Precisely what do you base these conclusions on? pankajdaga wrote: No wonder you have so many fans. Who the fuck is running a popularity contest? And just for grins, tell me how many people sneak into your country becuase of the quality of life offered there. Mike "liberals are being driven crazy by the fact that Bush is so popular with Americans, and thus by the realization that anyone to the left of center is utterly marginal." JAMES TRAUB NY Times "I don't want a president who is friends with France or Germany" Me "I plan to vote for Kerry before I vote against him." Me "There you go agin." RR