Have you read Dr Rice's resume/biography? Try comparing that to the recent Democrat Sec of State.....Albright. You liberals are so transparent in you misinformation/ignorance because you totally disregard the facts. No wonder most Americans vote conservative...Sure..call the black woman incompetent...stupid...etc. try to appeal to that KKK element of the Democratic party for the next election...since the liberal policy of entitlement no longer seem to reverberate with minority voters who would rather have the opportunity to suceed or fail at earning the good life...than have some bed-wetting liberal politician decide/give them what they think is appropriate....then tax away/redistribute the rest.

Works for me.

the best is the Dem's preventing the lower working clsss from gaining over some control of their Soc Security. Possibility the only chance they will ever get to have some meaningful savings that they can eventually pass on to their families. They're afraid of a new generation of mini-capitalists following the stock and bond markets.

WTF did you think I was talking about Rice? Is Rice the only one appointed?

The rest of this quote is the most laughable crap I've read in a long time. You have called liberals these things:

1. ignorant
2. misinformed
3. disregarding the facts
4. racist
5. appealing to the KKK element
6. liberal politicians are bed wetting
7. liberal politicians redistribute the wealth in this country

What a freaking joke. Seriously.

The best part is these things eerily sound like many republicans out there.

HAHAHAHA

OMG LIBERALS ARE SOOOO AFRAID OF THAT. They're soooo afraid of people passing meaningful savings on to their famillies. They're so afraid...very afraid. They're sooo terrified that they can't sleep at night thinking about people passing meaningful savings on to their families.

They lie awake at night wringing their hands!



You guys ever bother doing some thinking for a change? Here's a tip, try it. Quit listening to Rush and try to do some thinking on your own.

RE: then tax away/redistribute the rest.

1. FACT the monetary difference between the rich and poor is WIDENING and has been WIDENING for a long time, which makes this statement COMPLETELY FALSE....a LIE if you will.

2. Fiscal responsibility seems to not be a priority among republicans. What a disgusting trait. I find those who are responsible with their money (as I am) very appealing. Glad I know how you feel about being responsible.

<i>"4. racist"</i>

I only called them Nr. 4 (so far.....) and provided 5 specific examples of indisputable proof. There will be more to come in the following weeks as Rice's confirmation proceeds ..... it's only a matter of time before some well-known Democrat politician slips up and spews some racist remark that the mainstream media won't be able to ignore. ;)

Well yes, and it will continue to widen I hope.

Instead of labeling them Haves/Have Nots, how about we label them Dos/Do Nots; surely working hard to cut out a living should widen the gap between you and those who chose to do nothing but wait for the gravy train to arrive in the mail every month.

Yes, there are people in the country who are trying their hardest to get out of a bad situation and need any help they can get to improve their position, I for one applaud anything we can do to help these folks live a better life.
However, the US absolutely has to be the world leader of persons who have by their actions or inactions put themselves in a position of poverty, and have no intention of putting forth any effort to get out of poverty. And why not, as long as those govt checks come along with enough dough to by some bon-bons and a bag of pot every month they are happy.
It's the support of those who intend to stay in poverty that hurts the most the chance of those who really,truly need the help.

928, I don't give a **** what someone else has....

but to blatently lie by saying liberal politicians want to "redistribute the rest" when that hasn't happened, in fact been totally contrary to that statement for the past 35 years....there is absolutely no evidence to substantiate the claim that liberal politicians want to "redistribute the rest".....in fact, evidence points to the total and complete contrary (rich and poor gap is widening).

Again, I live very comfortably and am very happy. I'm a professional and I save/can buy what I want, etc...in other words, I live well. But I will not let statements that are lies go. Liberal politicians "redistributing the wealth" has no substantiation WHATSOEVER.



The core of my comments were addressing a statement that wasn't true, not to claim I want what someone else has....cuz I don't want for anything I don't already have.

Could not Kerry's proposed tax plan be considered a redistribution of wealth?
jurgen

Instead of labeling them Haves/Have Nots, how about we label them Dos/Do Nots; surely working hard to cut out a living should widen the gap between you and those who chose to do nothing but wait for the gravy train to arrive in the mail every month.

Yes, there are people in the country who are trying their hardest to get out of a bad situation and need any help they can get to improve their position, I for one applaud anything we can do to help these folks live a better life.
However, the US absolutely has to be the world leader of persons who have by their actions or inactions put themselves in a position of poverty, and have no intention of putting forth any effort to get out of poverty. And why not, as long as those govt checks come along with enough dough to by some bon-bons and a bag of pot every month they are happy.
It's the support of those who intend to stay in poverty that hurts the most the chance of those who really,truly need the help. [/B][/QUOTE]

Sorry, thats the biggest bunch of selfish neocon crap I have read here. There are very few people who do nothing and wait for the gov. check to arrive. I always have been amazed at this attitude because its one of the biggest reason's the US is sliding. What happened the Christian ethics to help out those who are less fortunate? Try sometime this holiday season to make a difference by spending time volunteering at a food bank or at your church handing out blankets to the homeless. Then you might see really whats going on in the US and you will be proud to know that some tax money does help people who need help instead of paying for farmland to lie fallow,subidize excess milk production or other "government pork" programs.
Back on topic- I think Condi Rice should have been fired the day after 911 happened. This admin. amazes me since they award incompetence with promotion. Of course, look at Rumsfeld. Another guy that should be fired for his incompetence.

I suppose I could see how you could view that way, but I would presume redistribution means this: take money from the rich and give to the poor.

I viewed the tax plan as a way to get the deficit down (no poor person would be getting extra). I also viewed this as an effective way to get the deficit down without throwing the economy in further turmoil (those who make more can tolerate the increase more than those who makes less). By ignoring the deficit, we're already seeing falling dollar, inflation, etc. Ignoring the deficit and letting the government run the way it's been running is going to hurt us in the long term, and those tax cuts you see will be gone in the form of higher prices.

Personally, I don't care how it's done, even if my taxes get raised, but either spending has to go down, or taxes have to go up. Bottom line. Something needs to be done.

No one likes taxes, but it's time we face reality.

OK, I would have to agree with ya.

I took exception to the words '"redistributing the wealth" has no substantiation WHATSOEVER.' Lowering taxes for everyone and raising taxes for top 2% of earners could certainly be construed as redistribution of wealth, within reason.

I prefer reined spending and level taxes, or raised taxes for justified causes, ONLY.

Well, what some fail to take into consideration is that these recent tax breaks benefited the rich far more than the middle class.

The argument can be made that the tax breaks of recent years were disproportional and unfair to the middle class.

A counter argument can be made that those who make more were disproportionately taxed prior to Bush. Which leads to the progressive tax system. One has to remember, the government wouldn't be able to sustain itself without taxing the "rich" at a higher rate. There simply wouldn't be enough revenue. Sad, but reality as it stands today.

Typical response from a left-coast lefty.

And this from the state where the hippies who think it's still 1969 flock from the hill every check day to buy their booze and cigarettes, then flock back to hide from society again; of course since alot of time has passed they flock down 3-4 generations strong now. Their choice to live like this and I'm supposed to pay them for it?
Please, the thing that prevents the truly poor and in need from getting help is those who use the sytem as a career and legacy.

Clintons welfare reform was successful. It's one of the 3or4 things he should banner.. actually Monica's DNA clothes should be on display. That banner could be charged admission for viewing.

targeted tax reductions properly done are economic stimulus. Economic stimulus = general higher standards of living. The dislocation of some people is the mainstream of US economic strength and flexibility. Ever wonder why Ireland is an economic dynamo making old Europe look bad? Ever wonder why Germany Had to change some old economic policies, although they will take a few short yrs to flow thru? Ever wonder why France is nervous over Germanys seemingly disconnect from old Europes socialism?

an interesting economic watch is the job growth of Germany vs France in the coming years.

Since you didn't indicate otherwise...the title of the thread made me suspect you were talking about Condi...wouldn't you think the same?
So, just who was the incompetent appointment you are referring to?

All are true and more...don't forget your party's "outing" of Cheney's daughter during both the presidential and vice presidential debates....guess you are trying to appeal to the homophobe crowd also.

They campaign against it and vote against it...why would you think they feel differently?

Redistribution simply means to take money from anyone and give to anyone else .

Why do you consider tis to be a problem? Are the poor making less? No. The poor are making more and the rich are making more. A rising tide lifts all ships...proportionally. Obviously that would increase the gap between the two.

Do you not READ?

I never stated that it was a "problem" I stated that your bullcrap line about this "redistribution" is all in your head. The gap has WIDENED over the last 35 years.

And no, the poor making more and the rich making more would not inherently widen the gap. The gap would stay consistent. The poor making a tad more to keep up with COLA and the rich making millions and billions more would widen the gap...which I state AGAIN I DON'T CARE. I'm just stating your "redistribution" theory isn't real.

In this REAL LIFE scenario, who is <i>anyone else</i>? Who are these "liberal politicians" who are "redistributing the wealth" IN REAL LIFE giving it to?

that cropped post of yours is an interesting sign of you being threatened. You speak logically sometimes thru a wall of fear.

The ability of a voter to have less needs answered by the gov't threatnens your beliefs.. relax

hahaha

No fear, no need to have my "needs" answered by the government. And for the record, how the hell do you know what my "beliefs" are?

Simply pointing out how through sarcasm ridiculous your post was. Just so it's very clear to you, I'll post the whole thread (instead of taking two sentences and taking it out of context like you did):




quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by RoninLB
the best is the Dem's preventing the lower working clsss from gaining over some control of their Soc Security. Possibility the only chance they will ever get to have some meaningful savings that they can eventually pass on to their families. They're afraid of a new generation of mini-capitalists following the stock and bond markets.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



HAHAHAHA

OMG LIBERALS ARE SOOOO AFRAID OF THAT. They're soooo afraid of people passing meaningful savings on to their famillies. They're so afraid...very afraid. They're sooo terrified that they can't sleep at night thinking about people passing meaningful savings on to their families.

They lie awake at night wringing their hands!



You guys ever bother doing some thinking for a change? Here's a tip, try it. Quit listening to Rush and try to do some thinking on your own.

you're confirming my last post.. thanks

Ok.....whatever...you make no sense.

Again, who the hell do you think you are to presume to know what my "beliefs" are?

you're telegraphing them.

. . .and telegraphing that you should have gone with "hot_chick" as a log-on. (ie hot-head)

maybe next time.

Obviously if both groups increase their incomes by 10% or 50%....both improve their income, but the gap widens.

That is how a progressive tax rate works.

Have you ever hear of Earned Income Credit?

So flintstone, you hold the liberal politicians responsibile for the progressive tax system in this country?

A progressive tax rate is, by definition, wealth redistribution. I hold liberal politicians responsible for trying to make taxes so "progressive" that they stifle growth, unfairly penalize achievement, and create a disaffected lower class with no immediate incentive to work harder…. This ultimately results in class warfare.

Have you proof of the fact that this is all the "liberal politicians" doing?

And do you have proof that the progressive tax does this:

1. Stifle groth
2. unfairly penalizing achievement
3. creating a disaffected lower class with no immediate incentive to work harder?

Because if 1 and 2 were true, the gap would in fact not be getting larger.

And I'm interested to see some proof in number 3...

Don't you think it's just a tad bit closer to the truth that the only way the government can sustain itself at this time IS the progressive tax system, and that currently, if it's not progressive, there will not be enough revenue to support the government?

Geezus....if U think the tax code the USA has now isn't Progressive...than I don't know what to say to you....

The tax code as it now stands PROMOTES SPENDING and not saving..if U go to a National Sales Tax...it will have the effect of causing people to save money....something which hasn't been done since the 1960's....

The Dividend Tax Reduction...Also promotes savings...and not just by the wealthiest but by middle Americans as well....

This country with it's Accounts deficits has to do something to promote saving over spending....

Cool don't look at this as a Liberal vs Consevative issue....but look at it as an economic issue....

Clearly liberal voting records support increasing tax rates on higher wage earners...and it was part of the platform of your recent presidential candidate. The results (1-3) are mainstream economic theory on the results of such. The "proof" would be the results of the Kennedy, Reagan, and Bush tax cuts.

Obviously, to anyone with common sense, extremely progressive tax rates do exactly as posted.

I am for the Privatization of a portion of your SS....simply do the math of what the govt takes out of your wages on a yearly basis...and do the compounding of the interest that money would make over a person working career of say 45 years...and you will find that the income you derive at the end is far greater than SS and you will have a large amount of principle to pass on to your heirs....something SS doesn't do....

Now the tired ole saw is that people wouldn't save the money or they might pick the wrong investment etc... I would say a safety net of mandatory investment into a no touch account would be required and if the investment vehicle is simply bonds with a return currently of 6% to 8% is about as safe as your going to get....and over a 45 year period would be a substantial amount of moneies. (mandatory allocation of monies, with a greater emphasis on stocks when young turning to the safety of bonds when older)

Then why is the wage gap continually and "progressively" widens over the last 35 YEARS????????

Why are the results NOT indicative of your statements?

Oh, and I sure would appreciate some specfics regarding this:

Clearly liberal voting records support increasing tax rates on higher wage earners...

And not just one...you imply it's all liberal politicians.

And I'd sure like to see the balance of republican politican voting records re: same.

Something in the private sector have gone askew...the pay a CEO receives now for example...but this is a function of the Board of directors...

Secondly people with high tech skills are more highly sought than factory workers...

Many manufacturing jobs have gone overseas, becuae it is more cost effective...labour rates were askew in the USA after WW2 and with the rising compettion of foreign countries..it has put pressure on American labours compensation... Since the 1960's and 1970's it was a NO BRAINER to figure out American workers were overpaid...and some kind of adjustment was in order...the hope had bin that the tide would rise all boats...Baby the Golden Age of the American worker has past....and a return to the norm is now happening...

You have changed your argument. First you argued the difference between rich and poor....now you are discussing the "wage gap." They are quite different and are effected by taxes differently.