Muscatine

I agree......... That was funny. Chalk one up for VOM..........

GOOOOOOD MORRRNING ALL!

Home finally. Had a WONDERFUL time with the younguns-grands and greats but OH IT"S NICE TO BE HOME! As they say, "All Good Things Must Come To An End" So with that, Old Rosy has taken her seat ready to banter.

This rehashing of the "same ole same ole" Robin Hoodwinked notion that the meager are poised to financially bludgeon the wealthy is HOG SLOP. Liberal THIS Liberal THAT! When all anyone with the actual means and will are saying is--- that, you do not deserve more because you have more. Roosevelt tried that UBER-Liberal Tactic after his powerful surge in 1932 that taught us all a valuable lesson. You don't just raise taxes you even them out. We can correct the disparity without soaking the sponge to a dribbling waste. All that means is, that (to coin a phrase) What Joe the Plummber pays, is What Donnald the Trump pays. ----PERCENTAGES. What is good for one taxation is good for ALL taxation.

The canyon of tax gifting to the "most" at the behest of the rest, is finally realized and NEEDS to be corrected, and soon. Close the gaps and shut the exodus doors then we will begin to see the economy turn. Ever so slowly to be sure, but yet to be----------  eventually corporate greed will falter, GDP will fall even further, prices will rise ever higher, 13% unemployment could rise to 20% or higher, and once a dollar is taxed equally for all, jobs will return, factories will come home, corporate profits will actually remain palatable to all and YES......even the wealthy will still see a profit.

 "Reaganomics" does not work. If it did(STAY WITH ME HERE) this conversation wouldn't be taking place. "Free trade" as it's been packaged does not work. If it did, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Handing the "have more" even more, Does not work. If it did, we wouldn't be having this conversation. This nation of once outstanding industrial power has been given the green light of the greediest sort these past 14 years, than any other time in our history. Simple economic disaster is the result of the perverted culmination of each and every one of the aforementioned forms of economic malaise. You feed a crop from the root not the tassel. Ask farmer Bob. Watching the government twist our economic daisy into the dust of the 30's since 1980 has been SOOO painful from the numbers perspective. predicted each and every recession, and this one I called "looming depression" after GW signed his 4th Free Trade Agreement. So sad and SO PREDICTABLE.

This isn't about robbing the rich to feed the poor, it's about setting the percentages back to within a respectable range. After all, how is it fair to ask you to pay a lesser percentage in sales tax than another who spent more because you earned less than another patron Home Depot? It isn't. When ever the upper crust smells a change not in their usual favor, it's time to cry Liberal Conspiracy to soak the rich. It's time to close the gaps on every front and no crime or sin to suggest that WE ALL PAY OUR FAIR AND EQUAL SHARE. When Warren Buffet's secretary pays a higher per dollar tax than he does, it's time to fix that, like it or not.

God Bless

gta1 (so bigbrother's not confused)

Let me start by saying that I disagree with your friend who says that "the rich and buisiness' alike should be taxed to death because they are morally obligated to take care of the poor." Taxing anyone "to death" is a recipe for disaster. However, I do understand the underlying sentiment to the statement. As I'm sure you are aware, there are taxes in our country which are regressive meaning that the wealthy, although they pay more in hard dollars, actually pay less as a percentage of their overall income than those less fortunate. (You may remember Warren Buffet's million dollar challenge. There's a reason nobody would take him up on it.) I believe that this is what lstreat is referring to and, possibly, what your friend was attempting to express. So I won't rehash that.

That having been said, I think we all often conflate wealth with the ability to purchase material goods but, as I alluded to in my first post to bigbrother, wealth brings power and power from economics comes in all forms. For instance, wealth allows people like OJ Simpson and Michael Jackson to hire the best available legal representation to, in the opinion of some, skirt the law. Should they be allowed to make a mockery of our legal system simply because they are wealthy when others would probably be found guilty if facing the same evidence simply because they are poor and must use the public defender? Take health care. (I know it's a hot topic right now, and I'm not arguing for either side of the universal health care debate. That's a different discussion.) If two individuals are diagnosed with cancer, one rich and one poor, is the rich entitled to better doctors and facilities because he can afford better insurance coverage? Should a poor individual be relegated to inferior care and, possibly, an earlier death because of the balance in his or her savings account? Or what about education? Should the wealthy be entitled to better schools for their children because of the amount of money they make? Should poor families be forced to struggle with underfunded, dilapidated schools simply because they don't make enough money? (Don't forget that they may not make much money because they received a poor education in that same dilapidated school they're currently struggling with.)

Certainly, these are hard issues and it's easy to see how people can come down on either side. (I suspect you and I answered some of the questions from the previous answer very differently.) But oftentimes I believe that we, as liberals and conservatives, oversimplify the opposite side's positions into objectionable phrases like "stripping the wealth from the people who have it." When you say "I only want what i worked for," I could distill that down to an attitude of "every man for himself" but I doubt that's the way you actually live your life. I think we all believe in taking care of others to some extent but it's where we feel it crosses the line from help to a handout that we disagree.

But who gets to make that call? Who gets to decide what's help and what's a handout? And what's the government's role? While we can all agree that there are people who are in poverty due to their own actions or inactions and may not deserve our help because they'll misuse or abuse it, is it fair that their families, in particular their small children, are forced to suffer for the ineptitude of the two who brought them into the world? Should a child with a medical condition be forced to suffer needlessly because his parents are too damned stupid, self-absorbed, drunk, or high to take him to a doctor? I don't know anybody who's that cold hearted. Not even Republicans. Hell, not even bigbrother.

I, for one, believe that we all, including the US government, have a role to play in helping those in need. So, I guess when it comes to the big picture, I agree with your friend. But I also agree with you somewhat as I don't see robbing Peter to pay Paul as the answer. And yet I'm still an unabashed liberal.

Now, I'm not trying to lecture you or start a fight, I'm simply trying to explain (hopefully, in a non-confrontational way) how someone could make a statement like your friend. Feel free to disagree.

(It's long, I know. I think I've been possessed by lstreat.)

A well thought out and writen reply. I enjoyed reading it.

Thanks