Democrats & Liberals: Archives

I saw these attractive guys on meet the press yesterday. Between the two of them, they produce more than a book every year. Most of them are very similar.

They have titles like “Suck it Up”, “Stickin’”, “We’re Right; they’re wrong”, “Had Enough?” and “The Horse You Rode up On”. I am sure you all like the red meat they throw. You are buying all their books. It makes you feel superior. Keep it up. That is what you are good at doing.

Posted by: Jack at January 23, 2006 05:30 PM

A formula for success? Maybe. If there can be a united effort by all Democrats to get on the bandwagon.

Just a couple of observation from an old libertarian. If you want my vote, here is what I need from you: A pledge to clean up Congress with meaningful ethics reform. Hold both sides accountable for their moral lapses. Stop posturing for the cameras and get to work! Stop pointing fingers and reach out to all segments of society. Stop pandering to interest groups that make the most noise. There is only one aim for government: make the country better and safer. Creating entitlement programs with no limits does neither. Promoting illegal immigration does neither, it only plays into the hands of the other side and hurts the economy.

Stop trying to fix all problems by throwing money at them. Give us a realistic plan for improving education, energy policy, taxes, and removing government from everything that we do.

Show me a plan that will accomplish these purposes and you have a good shot at my vote and the votes of many of us out here who are sick and tired of both parties. I believe the last election went the way it did only because the Republicans gave us a plan. Many of us knew it was not true, but it beat the Democrats crying foul and just saying they were against Republicans.

Return to the Democratic party of Harry Truman. Be willing to stand for something. Let the voters make the choice. If you give us what we need, you have a good chance of winning. If not, they will win again.

Posted by: john Back at January 23, 2006 05:43 PM

“but nobody paid attention because they were not wrapped around a story”

OR, nobody approved of the liberals message.
Is the answer really to sugar coat your message and hope the people don’t notice? Or is it better to have a message that includes all?

Abortion voters dont change their minds.

Gays in the military is NOT the issue. Gay marriage is.
These amendments passed with ALOT of Dem support. Just saying “Republicans hate gays, vote for us” wont work here.

Tax cuts vary per individual.
Some think govt should take your money tell you how to live and some believe in doing it themselves.
But EVERYBODY loves getting money back.

One thing you did not mention is gun control. IMO, it is a huge mistake if the Dems wish to continue to ignore the 2nd Amendment and these voters. There are millions of votes that deal with this issue alone and having respect for their beliefs could be quite beneficial for the Dems.

If the authors would have also pointed out how hypocritical Democrats are, then I would say this “progressive patriotism” rhetoric may have a chance.

Very interesting article Paul, thanks.
I enjoyed the read.

Posted by: kctim at January 23, 2006 05:47 PM

OK, I am a Republican, but I have been closely watching this book and such excerpts and interviews as I can. Have not read the entire thing yet, but I have seen enough, I am trying to convince my Party members, this should be required reading.

My point is not to argue any particular position, but some free advice from the other side; this could be the most important book of this election cycle. Positions aside, these are two of the best pros in the business and you ignore them at your peril.

Central to it is the idea that Democrats have to get together and decide to stand FOR something. What the something is is almost less important than being for something. If the Democrat Party sits back and tries to win with little or no platform of issues thinking that the Abramoff revelations will win for you, you will wake up next December asking yourselves “How the heck did this happen?”

It’s easy to get a poll showing voters think Congress is full of rascals and theives, but a curious thing often happens when the focus is narrowed to their district. It seems different when they start thinking about THEIR rascal.

Just one example I heard last week. Nancy Pelosi, speaking at a home district Town Hall meeting; “Next year, we are going to put George Bush up against George Bush. If that doesn’t work, we’ll put him up against Franklin Delano Roosevelt!” (wild applause from the house). Might help to remember, George Bush isn’t running next year, and Franklin is slightly dead.

If the economy is still stable, Iran and Israel avoid going nuclear, and Pelosi’s strategy is what the Party actually runs on, Carville and Begala are right: we’re going to clean your clock again.

Posted by: Jim Ryan at January 23, 2006 05:49 PM

Republicans and Democrats are two large, evil corporations. Right now one evil corporation is in power over the other, but will not always be such. All i know (and this is backed up daily by the news) is that when you have total control of power (aka a republican everything) there is going to be some gross misuse of power. The same would be true if it were a Democratic house, senate, executive and judiciary. Checks and balances keeps them more “honest” than the current senario. Right now there are no checks, and definately no balance. Its beyond sad.

Republicrooks lie, spin, steal unlike anything we have seen in our lifetimes. Honestly, abortion is between the person having one and god (if there is such a thing). The same is true for gay marriage (who really cares if they marry if they love each other? if they are willing to accept an eternal hell for a few years of unequivicol love, who are we to stand it their way? again, this is assuming there is a hell, and that god is not a vindictive prick who preaches forgiveness but doesn’t practice it).

Most liberals are closer to a conservative ideology than conservatives. Protecting the individual from corrupt government, protecting the environment for our children so that huge corporations do not continue to pollute, not allowing the purchase of fully automatic assault rifles, taxing the rich so that the poor aren’t continually given the shit end of the stick. yeah, liberals are really out to make your lifes difficult, aren’t they?

Thank your local liberals, they really are your friends, and if it weren’t for us, this very well could be a monarchy (not the same as a washington monopoly— aka a republican everything) or still under the control of some colonial power.

Posted by: tree hugger at January 23, 2006 06:34 PM

PoppyCock, Paul. I have yet to see Democrats stand in unison to threaten a filibuster against the bribing of them and theirs by lobbists or special interests, or offer anykind of real corruption reform in Washington DC, even when they were the party in power.

Both parties need a lesson that smarts for decades. That can only come in the form of a dramatic trend in the election polls which unseats incumbents of both parties. Only then, will Congressional politicians carry the mantra forward in their minds: “I work for the voters, I work for the voters, I work for the taxpayers, I work for the taxpayers.”

Lobbyists and special interests aren’t inherently an evil concept to democracy. What is evil, is when politicians count on their money more than on the people’s interests and agenda, and pass legislation that clearly harms the greater public and favors a few wealthy contributors. Can anyone say Medicare Rx Law? How about invading Iraq? Or, can anyone say 8.2 trillion dollars of national debt soon to be over 10 Trillion before Bush leaves office? Where were the “honorable” (choke) Republicans and Democrats when it came to the public’s interest; their lives, their tax dollars, and their retirement years, when these votes in Congress were taken?

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 23, 2006 07:39 PM

these are interesting comments. I just read Jimmy Carter’s new book about our endangered values and, even though I think he is the best president we have had since Roosevelt, he has something to say for anyone that is worth listening to. He walks his talk, for one thing. And he believes in the separation of church and state and lived that during his presidency. He mentions that he is against abortion—-but who knew?? because it was law, he put aside his personal beliefs and worked hard to make sure healthy birth control and adoption options were clear and understood and available as options. WHO LIKES ABORTIONS?? no one. i worked at a clinic for years and never met one woman who was glad to be there. It is an option—-that is all. a choice among many that women only choose with reluctance and sadness. no one ever wanted or went out happily to have an abortion—-and i think many forget that.
Democrats—-really all of us—-need to start really reflecting upon who we are as a nation and what we stand for and how we want that reflected in our actions and policies.

Do we really value money, control, arrogance, bullying behavior, always getting our way and never working with anyone else over cooperation, a healthy environment, everyone working together, being a beacon for human rights, equality, feeding the hungry, healing the sick, etc? we are the richest nation on earth and just recently i found out that although we go around pledging a lot of money to AIDS, vaccines, etc—-we give less than any other nation on earth.

our country will soon be owned by china and others because of this debt—-where do people think this money that we are borrowing to invade other countries and give more money to the rich and to halliburton and companies who are exacting millions for thier “rebuilding” of Iraq, new orleans, etc is coming from? and WHO IS LOOKING at the bills of these companies??

I realize i am all over the place here, but where are the real leaders of this country? where are the jimmy carters who are not afraid to speak the truth with honesty and humility and not anger and judgement? where are our leaders who send their kids to public school and drive a prius or ride a bike to work?

Posted by: judye at January 23, 2006 07:59 PM

This is how a liberal might look at taxation.

1. Set a no tax at the poverty level, i.e., if the governemnt establishes that someone lives at or below poverty level at $25,000 per year, no one who earns less would pay any tax, period.

2. No matter how much income a person makes, they would not pay tax on the first $25,000. It makes no difference if earnings are $26,000 or $400,000 the first $25,000 would not be taxed.

3. Earnings from $25,001 to $35,000 would be taxed at 10% of the top $10,000.

4. $35,001 to $45,000 at 10% of the first $10,000 and 20% of the top $10,000.

5. $45.001 to $55,000 at 10% of the first $10.000, 20% of the next $10,000 and 30% of the top $10,000.

6. $55,001 to 65,000 at 10% of the first $10,000, 20% of the next, 30% of the next, and 35% of the top $10,000.

7. Continueing to increase at 5% increments for each income increase of $10,000 to a maximim of 50%, and continueing at 50% from that point up.

8. Allow no fudges or loopholes, no exemptions or deductions. Everyone pays the same at each level.

9. A person having an income of one million dollars ($1,000,000), would pay zero taxes on the first $25,000, 10% on the first $10,000 above that, 20% on the next $10,000, etc., until the 50% maximun was reached and would pay that 50% on the rest of his/her income.

10. No differences would be allowed for types of income, i.e., dividends, interest, realty investment income, inheiritence, wages would all be taxed at the same rates.

Posted by: Marysdude at January 23, 2006 08:01 PM

Just one example I heard last week. Nancy Pelosi, speaking at a home district Town Hall meeting; “Next year, we are going to put George Bush up against George Bush. If that doesn’t work, we’ll put him up against Franklin Delano Roosevelt!†(wild applause from the house). Might help to remember, George Bush isn’t running next year, and Franklin is slightly dead.

Jim Ryan,

Whenever I hear or see ridiculous rhetoric like this from the Republicans, I go to the source and find out what was actually said and in what context. The Republicans have a habit of taking sound bites of the Democrats out of context and twisting them into something they are not. I rarely ever trust anything said by the right, unless I have reliable knowledge that it’s true. When I think about values in politics, this is what I think of. Can you trust anything that is coming out of this person’s mouth? From my own personal experience, and it is apparent Democrats are no angels, but, I have found that Republicans are far more dishonest than Democrats, far, far more. It doesn’t take too much to figure that out either, if you just go to the source.

I recently posted an article about town hall meetings and I am very familiar with Nancy Pelosi’s. This is a good example of the frustration John Murtha talked about at another town hall meeting. He said, “Every time I make a comment I get rhetoric answers, instead of substantive answers.”

What you quoted was NOT what Pelosi said and it is way out of context, it’s not even close. What she was actually talking about was the heat the Democrats took for not offering a plan on Social Security; you can’t beat something with nothing.

This is what Nancy Pelosi actually said and in it’s real context:

We said yes we can. We can beat George Bush with his own plan, because he wants to privatize social security. In January of last year, 60% of seniors welcomed the President’s new fresh ideas on how to save Social Security. Which was euphonism, of course, for destroy. So Harry Reid and I, working together organized the Democrats, kept them without each of them…we have 250 of them between us, and we would have had 250 plans…and we said we’re going out there and we’re holding George Bush up against himself. And if he wants to be put up against anybody, we’ll put him up against Franklin Delano Roosevelt. (a few claps from the house).

We’ll put him up against Social Security, because his plan can’t compare to Social Security. So look at the results, in that year, going from 60% positive among seniors to 70% negative, at least 70% negative now, and every age group you can measure is against what the President did. If we listened to all the conventional wisdom and secret sauce of people who said you’ve got to have something, we would have been comparing provisions, instead we were just talking about Social Security vs. privatization. Social Security won the day, thanks to the Democrats. (wild applause from the house). We had to go outside of Washington to do it; we had to go outside of Washington to do it. We had 1000 town meetings, and many of you attended some of them here. 1000 town meetings that the press covered and got the visibility, created a drumbeat across America.

Sure we would have liked to have the majority, won the White House and gone in with a positive agenda on jobs and healthcare and education that we could pass. But, we didn’t have the majority, so when they hit, they came after us with their agenda, we defeated it; the primary initiative of the President, privatization of Social Security, thanks to the Democrats in the Congress of the United States.

You can watch it yourself. You can find a link to it in my post “The M-Street Project”.

Nancy makes a good point here. The Republicans are the majority party, and nothing gets out of Congress without their blessing. If they had put forth an alternative plan on Social Security it would have been trashed by the Republicans, with no chance of passing. The best they could do was to kill a bad plan and work on becoming the majority in Congress, were they can then put forth plans that have a chance of passing.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at January 23, 2006 08:08 PM

Marysdude,

That’s quite in line with what I would have in mind. The exact amounts would vary depending on the level of funding the government really needed (which, if we were to cut out a lot of crap, would be a lot lower than we’re running at now).

Of course, you still have the issue of corporate taxes to consider. When you tax a corporation, the corporation responds by raising prices, lowering wages, and other such things that pass the cost (eventually) on to the citizens. So nobody, even the poor, is really living a tax-free life.

If you remove the corporate taxes, you’ll have to increase the income tax rates to balance things out, but that won’t affect those below poverty (who, in your system, would pay no income tax) except to lower their cost of goods and raise their incomes.

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at January 23, 2006 08:13 PM

Marysdude: Under your idea, at 70000 a year after 2 years I would be broke or at least hurting enough to curtail my spending to a point where some businesses would notice my loss. multipy that loss by a couple of hundred million and your talking big time recession. Sure the poor would have maby 100 bucks extra but at 25000 a year they dont pay much tax anyway. Your Idea would just take money from the rich and switch it to big government. The poor would not benefit at all. It is common knowledge that the rich create the jobs for the rest of us. Tax them out of existence and you create more poverty then ever, which will put more people on the dole but the government could afford it due to the moneys they would collect from the rich under your tax code. Heck they may even have enough to socialize medicine.

Posted by: commander jc at January 23, 2006 09:18 PM

commander jc,

So, what do YOU recommend? Do you have an alternative to propose, or have you, like the Democrats, become just another nay-sayer?

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at January 23, 2006 10:07 PM

Let’s see, at $70,000 per year…

1. You would not pay any tax on the first $25,000

2. You would pay 10% on the first ten above 25,000, or $1,000. Remember that would be $1,000 9n actually the first $35,000 because you did not pay any on the first $25,000.

3. Then you’d pay 20% on the next $10,000. That’s $2,000 added to the other $1,000 for a total of $3,000 on $45,000 of income.

4. Your 30% of the next $10,000 would be $3.000. Now you’ve paid in $6.000 on $55,000 income.

5. At this point it changes to increases of 5% per $10,000. 35% of $10,000 is $3,500. Add that to the $6,000 for a total of $9,500 on $55,000 income.

6. Add another 40% of the last $10,000. Your bill is $13,500 on an income of $65,000. Leaving you $51,500 spendable income.

How would that break you in two years?

7. For those making more than $65,000…they would pay 45% on the next $10,000 taking them to $18,000 out of 75,000 ( $57,000).

8. Max tax is 50% of all income above $85,000.

With no exemptions or deductions, no loopholes or cheatsheets and making no difference what type of income it is. It is simple and fair.

Remember, no matter how smart someone is, no matter how ambitious they are, no matter how hard they work, they are in the position they attain as a matter of luck. Luck at being born. Luck at being born in a given location. Luck at being born to certain parents. Luck at being instilled with certain talents. Luck to be born into a select group, etc. So, if they somehow end up earning more, they should pay more.

That’s one liberal view…

Posted by: Marysdude at January 23, 2006 10:24 PM

Paul Siegel,

You make some really good points about how the Republicans beat the Democrats.

You only missed one thing.

Generally speaking, there is really no significant difference between Democrats or Republicans.

Not really. They say different things, but they do the same things, for the most part.

BILLs pass all the time that both parties vote for. Not because one party has the majority, but because both parties, for the most part, passed the BILL.

Both parties are irresponsible and unaccountable, both vote on pork-barrel, both get caught with their hands in the cookie jar (and then get a pardon … who says political crime doesn’t pay?), both only pretend to want campaign finance reform, both refuse to tackle tough issues, both are borrowing and spending us into bankruptcy, both refuse to police their own ranks, and both look the other way.

Honestly, I used to participate in the same kind of partisan warfare too, before I removed my partisan blinders. Now, it’s all too clear that both main parties are just takin’ turns gettin’ theirs, peddlin’ influence, fillin’ their pockets, votin’ themselves superior retirement benefits (not part of the mismanaged Social Security and Medicare system the rest of us are relegated to), votin’ them selves raises and cu$hy perks, and using and abusing the tax-payers, all while our troops risk life and limb. Yes, I’m ashamed to admit that I too fell for the circular pattern of distracting partisan warfare, and empowered irresponsible politicians to use and abuse Americans.

But not any more, and I hope that some of tiny bit of the above resonates with you and others, because unless enough of us catch on to the way both main parties are just takin’ turns, the decline and decay of this nation will continue.

It seems quite likely that Republicans have shot themselves in the foot (big-time), and are likely to lose their majority, but I don’t see the rise of the Democratic party as any real improvement. It will simply be more of the status quo, corruption, the national debt, and the government will continue to grow to nightmare proportions (notice that the debt now in 1950 dollars is about quadruple what it was in 1950 (i.e. the debt in 1950 in 2005 dollars is one fourth of what it is now).

Posted by: d.a.n at January 23, 2006 10:28 PM

By the way…these figures are thrown out there as a suggested starting point. I don’t know what the current poverty level is, but I think the only adjustment to a program like this one would be to each year set the level of no tax to that poverty level.

Posted by: Marysdude at January 23, 2006 10:29 PM

By the way…these figures are thrown out there as a suggested starting point. I don’t know what the current poverty level is, but I think the only adjustment to a program like this one would be to each year set the level of no tax to that poverty level.

=====

If democrats make that their one campaign stance, that is a guaranteed election in 2008.

Posted by: tree hugger at January 23, 2006 10:44 PM

Regarding taxes, the biggest problem with any tax system is going to be the funding of Social Security and Medicare, since both systems have already been plundered.

Unfortunately, we can’t suddenly declare Social Security and Medicare bankrupt (even though they are), and tell everyone who has paid into it during the last 55 years to suck it up and forget it.

But, taxes could be reasonable if only government didn’t waste so much. In 2003, the federal government couldn’t account for 24.5 billion in spending. They know it got spent, they just don’t know how or by who. Then, there is all the pork-barrel, graft, and corporate welfare. Tax payers shouldn’t be getting that bill. If the U.S. GDP is about 11.5 trillion, and the U.S. federal tax revenues are about 2.2 trillion (about 19%), and assuming the U.S. federal government can cut spending 9%, the federal government should be able to get by on 1.96 trillion. Thus, a 17% flat income tax rate (with all deductions and loop holes eliminated, and a low-income-level threshhold) could raise the 1.96 trillion needed. Government is much too big, and needs to be trimmed down significantly.

Posted by: d.a.n at January 23, 2006 11:09 PM

Republicans lower taxes, right? Sure they do, we’ve seen it happen over the last 5 years, even while we are at war. Everyone cheer! The Republicans have bought my vote! Who would vote for one of those immoral Democrats, who only want to raise our taxes?

This is the logic of the average Neo-con, but the truth is, it is Bush and the Republican Party who will be responsible for future tax increases. We all want a tax cut, and it is great when we get one, but simple mathematics dictates that we cannot spend more than we take in indefinitely, without raising revenue. What do you Republicans think? That your Fairy Godmother will fly in with her two right wings and make all things better with with her magic wand? At some point taxes will have to be raised, it is inevitable, and which ever party is in power at that time will be branded, even though the tax increases were necessary because of past irresponsibility.

Now, I know some will say, well Clinton had billions of our money in surplus, and he didn’t want to give it back. True, he wanted to put it in Social Security. You know, that little gov’t program that Bush found WMDs in?

Sorry for the rant, but I get so sick of hearing people say that the Republicans are for lower taxes. That only works if you are also for lower spending.

d.a.n,

I agree, of course, about government waste. The military can’t account for a butt load of money. I have heard the amount unaccounted for is in the trillions, while some in Congress say it is billions. Either way, how do you lose even a million dollars, much less a billion, or a trillion? Most of us would probably be fired if we lost even a few hundred or less. But, if you work for the government, people just keep on letting their money be taken by the crooks, to pocket or lose or use as toilet paper. (Who knows?)

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at January 23, 2006 11:52 PM

My family was Democrat for generations,but since JFK was assinated I and my Father have seen this country change into something we cannot live with,so we are not Democrats and will not be again unless they go back to upholding the Constitution as it is written and give the States back the rights granted them in the Constitution and limit the Federal role to what the Constitution grants which is maintaining a military to protect us.Civil rights are states rights not Federal rights.Under Democratic control we have Federally controlled schools which are worse now,and a Christians right to pray anywhere he or she wants which is part of practicing that religion is forbidden if you are a government employee.They cannot read or study the Bible on school grounds,but,if they are any other religion they are protected.Under Federal control the Theory of Evolution is taught as fact because it not a religion,but,it is not provable and by definition can not be taught as fact.Since it cannot be proven you have to accept it on FAITH and that makes it a RELIGION,a HUMAN RELIGION,or I should say a GOVERNMENT ESTABLISHED RELIGION,and that is a no no.” Congress shall not legislate to establish a religion or inhibit the free exercise therof”.I don’t believe that the framers idea of free press was printing fiction (false stories) as fact or printing what amounts to sedition.By the way,I’m not a Republican either and they are wrong about many things.I am a American,the kind George Washington advised us to be in his farewell speech warning us not to adopt a two party system because it would divide us.We have more than 2 parties and some have good ideas and some don’t,but,they may be in the majority someday just as the Republicans are now,because they represent the MAJORITY as the Democrats used to,but now DON’T.The Democrats leaders are going in a direction the people don’t want to go.When they represent what the people want,for real,they will again be the MAJORITY.I’m not a Republican,but,right now I’m supporting the Republican President bcause he is representing me.When he stops,so will I.

Posted by: RDAVIDC at January 24, 2006 12:04 AM

So the Republicans are the ONLY ones that are taking are freedom away? I’ve got news for yaall.
The Democrats are just as guilty if not more so.
1.Gun conrtol
2.Political correctness.
3.Banning any mention of God in schools.
4.Grabing private land so it cann’t be mined.
5.Seatbelt laws.
6.Motorcycle helment laws.
7.Bicycle helment laws.
8.Manditory auto insurance.
9.Affirmitive action.
All these either are supported by or were put into place by Democrats. Everyone of them takes freedoms away from the people. And I’m not claiming that the Republicans are innocent of trying to take our freedom away from us either.

Posted by: Ron Brown at January 24, 2006 12:40 AM

Marysdude
Without resorting to the wornout phrases like “They can afford too” or “They shoulld pay more because they earn more” can you explian why anyone should pay 50% of their income in taxes?

Posted by: Ron Brown at January 24, 2006 12:46 AM

RDAVIDC,

You talk about going back to upholding the Constitution as it is written and give the States back the rights granted them in the Constitution and limit the Federal role to what the Constitution grants which is maintaining a military to protect us. I agree the states must be given the power back that is given by the Constitution. But I really don’t think a party that defends a President who is usurping power that the Constitution does not grant, has no respect for the 4th amendment, and is trying to write discrimination into it, is the party I want in power to restore the Constitution.

It is also funny, that the Republicans control all branches of government, yet they have done very little to give power back to the states. In fact they are trying to take more away with their marriage inequality amendment.

The Constitution is about more than just the Military. Read the whole thing and the Amendments.

Civil rights are states rights not Federal rights.

You seem to know about as much as the Republican Party when it comes to the Constitution. Civil rights are a Federal right. Article IV, Section. 2:

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

See also, the 13th and 14th Amendments.

Under Democratic control we have Federally controlled schools which are worse now

I’ll give you that the public schools are a disaster today, but I don’t see our Republican controlled government doing much about it.

and a Christians right to pray anywhere he or she wants which is part of practicing that religion is forbidden if you are a government employee. They cannot read or study the Bible on school grounds,but,if they are any other religion they are protected.

Since when? I’ll pray whenever I damn well please, and if the gov’t wants to stop me, then I’ll see them at the SCOTUS. The SCOTUS has ruled that religion cannot be taught, and that religious symbols may not be placed on public property by a government entity, but I have never heard that practicing your religion is forbidden. Can you cite the Case Law?

Under Federal control the Theory of Evolution is taught as fact because it not a religion,but,it is not provable and by definition can not be taught as fact.Since it cannot be proven you have to accept it on FAITH and that makes it a RELIGION,a HUMAN RELIGION,or I should say a GOVERNMENT ESTABLISHED RELIGION,and that is a no no.â€

A scientific theory is a religion? Someone call the schools and have them remove theory from the scientific method! Evolution is a testable theory, religion is not. Evolution testing is constantly taking place today. Not because scientists are trying to disprove God, but because knowing how and why thinks work can improve or save our lives. We know that evolution does happen, that has been proven in simpler life forms. If you get a flu shot, you have to get one every year. Why? Because it evolves. You know that avian flu everyone is so worried about? It may evolve to a point that it will pass from one human to another and cause a pandemic. Don’t you think it is important that we know how it does this and how best to stop it? And if people have been saved because we know how evolution works in microorganisms, how many more can we save if we understood the process in higher life forms?

There is an important difference between scientific theory and religious theory. Science seeks out the how, and does not concern itself with the who. Religion seeks out the who, and doesn’t concern itself with the how.

I don’t believe that the framers idea of free press was printing fiction (false stories) as fact or printing what amounts to sedition.

Who decides what is fact and what is fiction? And who decides which may be published where, if at all? What you’re advocating is very dangerous.

I’m supporting the Republican President because he is representing me.When he stops,so will I.

For me this Republican President only represented me for a very short time, and stopped years ago. About the only thing he has really represented me on was his initial reaction to 9/11 and the war against OBL and al-Queda. That stopped when he ended that war and instead pursued the war in Iraq for whatever the latest reason is. This President and this Republican controlled Congress have no interest in upholding the U.S. Constitution.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at January 24, 2006 01:32 AM

1.Gun conrtol

The 2nd amendment:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Notice the words ‘well regulated’? Gun control does not infringe on anyones rights to keep and bear arms, but regulates it.

2.Political correctness.

When did political incorrectness become a crime?

3.Banning any mention of God in schools.

By the school? Yes. In the school? I think you better call 1-800-Call-Sam!

4.Grabing private land so it cann’t be mined.

I’m not sure what you’re refering to here. Who took over private land to stop a mine? Was the land stolen, or were the owners given just compensation as the 5th amendment requires?

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at January 24, 2006 02:04 AM

But no Democrat has any new ideas:

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10857677/site/newsweek/?rf=snwnewsletter

What fault can anyone find with Biden? He’s sometimes too longwinded? He overstated his involvement in creating “Megan’s Law”?

Joe Biden’s as true blue as you can get. He’s American first and Democrat second. He knows personal loss. He’s a thoughtful man.

No “flip-flop” crap with Biden. In my opinion he could be the Truman of this century.

But, I’m just a crazy Democrat.
KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at January 24, 2006 03:11 AM

>>can you explian why anyone should pay 50% of their income in taxes?

ron,

Because they could just as easily have been born without the ambition or skills or parents that allowed their accumulation of wealth.

Remember, no matter how smart someone is, no matter how ambitious they are, no matter how hard they work, they are in the position they attain as a matter of luck. Luck at being born. Luck at being born in a given location. Luck at being born to certain parents. Luck at being instilled with certain talents. Luck to be born into a select group, etc. So, if they somehow end up earning more, they should pay more.

And, the reason they should pay more, is because the less fortunate can’t.

Posted by: Marysdude at January 24, 2006 06:05 AM

Ron Brown,

Without resorting to the wornout phrases like “They can afford too†or “They shoulld pay more because they earn more†can you explian why anyone should pay 50% of their income in taxes?

First, under Marysdude’s program, NOBODY would be paying 50% of their income in taxes. The wealthy would have PART of their income taxed at 50%, and other parts taxed at a lesser rate. The total, even for the wealthiest American, would still be less than 50% (although in some cases trivially so).

Second, and more importantly… Why should ANYONE have to pay ANY taxes? Because the government can’t run without funding. In order to run the government, we have to tax SOMEBODY. Progressive tax logic is simply to place the burden on those who would feel it the least.

What do you, Ron Brown, propose as an alternative to Marysdude’s plan?

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at January 24, 2006 08:02 AM

“Remember, no matter how smart someone is, no matter how ambitious they are, no matter how hard they work, they are in the position they attain as a matter of luck. Luck at being born. Luck at being born in a given location. Luck at being born to certain parents. Luck at being instilled with certain talents. Luck to be born into a select group, etc. So, if they somehow end up earning more, they should pay more.”
—————————————————————————

Marysdude, you can’t be serious. Do you mean to say that anything any individual does or gains in this world is a matter of sheer probability? In your argument, the work ethic, morals, values, ideology that a person holds in society in order to become a productive citizen and show ambition to not be one of the “poor” and live a comfortable lifestyle is nothing more than a roll of the dice. How can you possibly think that?

Your argument refutes any notion of free choice in society and social standing. So the “poor” parents of a “poor” child don’t really choose for themselves to push their kid to get good grades in school so they can get an education and a good job, it is just dust in the wind that decides this? Or even Bill Gates…it is pure probability that he chose to quit college and start Microsoft, it was not his intuition or his drive to succeed?

I have to argue that we have total control over our talents and our mental capacity to acheive whatever we choose to acheive. After all, I would like to think that I had something to do with determining where i am in life.

Posted by: Greg the Underwriter at January 24, 2006 09:00 AM

I thought forcing your beliefs and morales onto another was wrong?

Posted by: kctim at January 24, 2006 09:16 AM

Greg the Underwriter,

I think the truth is somewhere between your stance and Marysdude’s. Yes, our choices do a lot to determine where we end up in life, but consider this: For every millionaire you show me who started life in poverty, I can show you 100 who started life in the upper class. Yes, Bill Gates became the world’s richest man through his own intuition and drive, but he was born into a wealthy family to begin with.

Statistics show that people born into poverty are likely to stay there, and people born into wealth are likely to stay there, too. Class mobility is possible in our society, but not likely for most, and it’s as dependent upon luck and connections as it is on any personal quality you might possess.

People shouldn’t be punished for being successful, but Marysdude’s plan doesn’t do that. Nobody would find an increase in income leading to a decrease in take-home pay. Moving into a new “tax bracket” wouldn’t change the way your old income is taxed — it would just change the taxes for your new income.

As I have asked others, I will now ask you. What do you, Greg the Underwriter, propose as an alternative to Marysdude’s plan?

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at January 24, 2006 09:35 AM

>>I have to argue that we have total control over our talents and our mental capacity to acheive whatever we choose to acheive.

greg,

And luckily, you may be right.

All seriousness aside, let’s look at this from your point of view…I was born with less thinking capacity than you were. That means that you will succeed in areas that I will likely fail.
Since I was born with less ambition than you, which should lead to your economic success while mine will likely be less successful. What determined your mental capacity and ambition?

I may have the same mental capacity and the same ambition, but less talent or charisma. What determines the difference?

But, enough of that, let’s get to the main points…

1. We need taxes in order to survive.

2. Although we can never trust those in charge of our tax money to always do the right thing, it does not exorcise the requirement.

3. Since I have less brain capacity than you, less ambition than you, less talent than you and am not as charismattic as you, and you become a millionaire while I suffer the indignities of poordom, which of us can afford to sustain our tax needs better, you or I?

It’s the luck of the draw…you are lucky enough to pay the most because you are lucky enough to have these powers. It’s okay though. I’ll still mow your yard, and won’t hold it against you. And, since my mowing is a service to lucky you, you should pay more taxes gladly.

I love nature in balance…

Posted by: Marysdude at January 24, 2006 09:46 AM

>>People shouldn’t be punished for being successful, but Marysdude’s plan doesn’t do that. Nobody would find an increase in income leading to a decrease in take-home pay. Moving into a new “tax bracket†wouldn’t change the way your old income is taxed — it would just change the taxes for your new income.

rob,

How come you see this while greg the underwriter doesn’t? You’ve both probably had the same chances in life, you both may be evenly intelligent, and both of you can obviously read on a high enough level. Could the difference be preconcieved notions? Or maybe just luck?

I’ll never tell…

Posted by: Marysdude at January 24, 2006 10:01 AM

Rob,

I’ve heard talk here and there about a strict consumption tax, and that would be my alternative proposal. I have not worked out the numbers or the strict details, but generally this is how it would work:
Abolish the personal progressive income tax as we know it. Basically impose a “sales tax” on discretionary goods and services, and exclude food, clothing, education, basic health care costs and anything else considered “necessary” for basic living expenses. That way, the “poor”(or anyone else for that matter) don’t get whacked with any tax while obtaining the necessities for sustaining life. Anything above and beyond will be taxed at whatever percentage (i am not an expert on this, so i am not sure what the amount would be…but probably no more than 5-6%, maybe less).

Everyone wins. The “poor” hold no tax burden, the “rich” get taxed for all of the toys they buy and the vacations they take and everything else the “rich” spend money on. All of the personal tax loopholes are gone, no deductions or credits to shelter money behind. I would assume that a few percentage points on domestic consumption (excluding food, clothing, etc) will generate more revenue than a tax on income, which would create a surplus, and with the right controls (that do not exist with the idiots in DC now) we could use the surplus to pay down the national debt.

I am sure someone has crunched the numbers for a similar plan, so i can’t attest to the fine details of it. I know i am a dreamer thinking that i will actually see something like this in my lifetime, but its what i would propose.

Marysdude,

“How come you see this while greg the underwriter doesn’t? You’ve both probably had the same chances in life, you both may be evenly intelligent, and both of you can obviously read on a high enough level. Could the difference be preconcieved notions? Or maybe just luck?”
———————————————————————-
The difference is exactly what is debated here on Watchbolg and everywhere else in politics- Ideology. Preconceived notions are a product of ideology, and ideology can be a product of life experience. If you want label each individual’s unique life experience as a product of “luck”, then that is your choice to do so.

Posted by: Greg the Underwriter at January 24, 2006 10:15 AM

dude
So why should I, somebody unlucky, even work at all?
Its not my fault that I dont want to work. Those who work should take care of me and let me enjoy life with no worries whatsoever.

Posted by: kctim at January 24, 2006 10:25 AM

Marysdude,

I think there is a problem with preconceived notions on both sides. Democrats assume that someone has to have high taxes, and so assign those to the rich. Republicans assume that taxes don’t have to be high if we cut spending, so try to balance a low tax rate for everyone.

The Republican plan would work, if they could manage to cut spending in the process. Unfortunately, even with all three Houses theirs, they’re still spending like drunken Kennedys.

My thought is that things should go in this order:
(1) balance the budget (by whatever means necessary — raising taxes, cutting programs, etc.);
(2) cut spending where appropriate;
(3) THEN lower taxes as cost savings allow.

Democrats prefer:
(1) balance the budget (by raising taxes);
(2) increase spending;
(3) raise taxes again.

Republicans prefer:
(1) lower taxes;
(2) borrow money from our grandchildren to compensate;
(3) repeat until federal programs go bankrupt.

Of course, this is a critique of the two parties at a National level. Many local-area parties are doing a very good job at fiscal responsibility. Unfortunately, Washington’s forgotten the meaning of the term.

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at January 24, 2006 10:27 AM

>>Preconceived notions are a product of ideology, and ideology can be a product of life experience.>>Preconceived notions are a product of ideology, and ideology can be a product of life experience.

greg,

And, luckily your preconceived notions were formulated in an atmosphere that allowed or encouraged such an ideology.

Your tax suggestion is as reasonable as mine, and might work better, but it does leave the lower middle class closer to the poverty line. A national sales tax, which your proposal is, has been approached from several angles over the years and has been rejected each time. That does not make it wrong, as rejection can be caused by subjective decision makers, but mine may deserve a day in court as well.

Posted by: Marysdude at January 24, 2006 10:30 AM

>>So why should I, somebody unlucky, even work at all?
Its not my fault that I dont want to work. Those who work should take care of me and let me enjoy life with no worries whatsoever.

kc,

I don’t know…why should you?

But, I’m not sure that has anything to do with my tax proposal.

If, as untalented as you are, you don’t achieve poverty level, you won’t pay any taxes, and if you wish to live below poverty level, nothing I suggest will change your mind. You were unlucky enough to be born with less education/ambition/talent/charisma, etc., than most.

Posted by: Marysdude at January 24, 2006 10:38 AM

Greg the Underwriter,

It sounds like you’re describing the Fair Tax system. The only real difference is that, instead of exempting things like food and clothing, the tax is on everything, but there’s a monthly “refund”, to everyone, of the amount of taxes that would be payed by those at the poverty line. So those below the poverty line actually get back more than they pay in their refund, while the wealthy, who get the exact same refund, would barely notice it.

There are a few issues (I won’t necessarily call them “problems”) with this system, though:

(1) Once you get past the poverty line, everyone pays the same tax rate, which increases the burden on the middle class while reducing the burden for the wealthy;

(2) To break even with today’s system, it would require a sales tax of 30% of pre-tax price (or 23% of post-tax price);

(3) A great deal of income that is taxed today isn’t spent right away, if ever. Consider Bill Gates, for example. He’s worth many billons of dollars (over $40 billion, last I checked). Most of that is in stocks and other investments that wouldn’t be taxed as “consumption”. Which means that it would never be taxed in his lifetime (unless he spent himself dry) under a consumption tax system.

There’s one other issue with the Fair Tax system, but one that I think needs to be addressed anyway — Corporate Taxes. The Fair Tax would completely remove all Corporate taxes. While at first this seems like a really bad idea, it grows on you when you think about it. Whenever you tax a corporation, it compensates by increasing the price of its goods, and decreasing the compensation of its workers. (Because you KNOW the execs aren’t going to eat the cost!) So all these taxes hit the end user eventually anyway — even the poor, who still have to pay the elevated cost of goods that these taxes create.

In the long run, it would benefit the poor and middle class to replace corporate taxes with a progressive tax, but it’s a hard sell to those who prefer the illusion of making the evil corporations pay for everything.

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at January 24, 2006 10:49 AM

According to your tax proposal, I don’t need to work. The govt will take the money from those who do work and give it to me.
I could work 40 hours a week and make 20 grand or so a year OR I could not work, play all day and let the govt pay for my food and rent.

“nothing I suggest will change your mind”

You are wrong.
Tell me the govt wont steal the money I work for and that I am responsible for my own life and I will get a job and contribute to society.

Posted by: kctim at January 24, 2006 10:51 AM

kctim,

So why should I, somebody unlucky, even work at all? Its not my fault that I dont want to work. Those who work should take care of me and let me enjoy life with no worries whatsoever.

There are going to be people in the country who have this opinion, and choose this route, no matter what system of taxation you use.

My point is that the poor, whether by birth or by choice, cannot be relied upon to shoulder the tax burden. I’m not as apologetic as Marysdude; I’m a bit more realistic. I don’t believe that someone was “unlucky” enough to have been born an asshole, but at the same time I’m not going to bet my future on whether or not that asshole is willing to go to work.

I think you’re confusing taxes with social programs. So far, we haven’t mentioned anything about the rich taking care of the poor. This tax system would make sense no matter how many (or how few) social programs are in place.

Tell me the govt wont steal the money I work for and that I am responsible for my own life and I will get a job and contribute to society.

So are you suggesting we run a government with no taxes?!?! Or do you just want one that won’t tax YOU?

Really, kctim, what tax solution do YOU propose?

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at January 24, 2006 11:02 AM

“The Republican plan would work, if they could manage to cut spending in the process. Unfortunately, even with all three Houses theirs, they’re still spending like drunken Kennedys.”
—————————————————————————
Rob, you hit it on the head. This is exactly why fiscal conservatives (on the Republican side especially) are pissed off. I can only speak for myself, but show me a candidate that can make good on his/her promise to cut spending, balance the budget and plan to pay down the debt, and i will show that candidate my vote, regardless of party.

Marysdude,

Your proposal is reasonable considering it is a simplified and reformed model of the progressive income tax system we have now. Realistically, your system (or some close variation of it) would be much more likely to come to fruition than a consumption tax.

Posted by: Greg the Underwriter at January 24, 2006 11:03 AM

Personally, I’m less concerned with high-tax/high-spending vs. low-tax/low-spending as I am with matching the spending to the taxes. Balancing the budget should be the first priority. Then, if you want to increase programs, increase taxes accordingly. If you want to decrease programs, decrease taxes accordingly.

Either party could get my vote if they made Balancing the Budget their #1 financial priority.

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at January 24, 2006 11:09 AM

One thing you did not mention is gun control.

kctim, gun control is a dead issue with Democrats. Nobody’s talking about gun control any more. The DNC chairman and Senate minority leader are both staunch firearms advocates. To the new crop of Democrats, gun control is hitting what you aim at.

We’re still going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and insane people, but nobody is going to deprive Americans of their right to own a gun.

The fact that you don’t know that is testament to the difficulty Democrats have in getting their message across to the voters.

I am sure you all like the red meat they throw.

Jack, it’s obvious you’ve never read any of those books. Begala and Carville present Democratic ideals is a common sense and rational manner. There’s no ranting.

I re-read Carville’s “Had Enough” every six months or so because I really like the Democrat’s solutions to American issues.

Excellent article, Paul. I’m going to pick up the book as soon as it arrives on the slow boat to Singapore.

Posted by: American Pundit at January 24, 2006 11:14 AM

RC
Without socialist programs, the need for taxes would drop, bigtime.
We then could use taxes for their intended purposes.

My tax solution?
Everybody is taxed the exact same percentage and taxes are only used for running the respected govts.

Posted by: kctim at January 24, 2006 11:25 AM

AP
“The fact that you don’t know that is testament to the difficulty Democrats have in getting their message across to the voters”

That doesn’t sound like a dead issue then. It sounds like its still a problem.
Ignore the issue because its difficult or try harder to get your message out?
MILLIONS of votes AP and most believe as I do.
Convince us and getting elected will be just that much easier.

Posted by: kctim at January 24, 2006 11:34 AM

>>Everybody is taxed the exact same percentage and taxes are only used for running the respected govts.

kc,

So, if we are at war and taxation requirements are 35%, the guy making 25,000 will be paying 8,750 in taxes, leaving him trying to exist on 16,250. The millionaire will have to make due with a paltry 750,000.

The first guy is at that income level because his IQ is 85, and the millionaire is where he is because papa left it to him…well that’s fair.One guy flies to Paris and the other starves to death. Oh, well! Poor sap, he deserved it.

Posted by: Marysdude at January 24, 2006 11:40 AM

kctim,

So you don’t mind if the government “steals” the money you work for, as long as they “steal” from everyone equally?

I agree that the need for taxes could be dropped dramatically if we cut spending. I would also recommend returning to the States those things that have not been given to Congress by the Constitution.

However, I don’t agree that a flat tax is the answer. The burden on those already below the poverty line would be too great, and it would effectively move the poverty line UP by whatever amount the tax was. And, since you would pair it with cutting social programs, it would discourage social mobility, keeping poor people poor and rich people rich.

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at January 24, 2006 11:42 AM

Why not tell it in a fair manner based in reality dude?
The guy making $25,000 will be paying $8750 in taxes.
The guy making $1 million will be paying $250,000 in taxes.

What right do you have to tell another person how to use his money?
Why should he be forced to support what YOU believe is the right thing to do?
I thought forcing ones beliefs onto another was wrong?

Get rid of nanny programs that create dependency and taxation requirements will drop.

Posted by: kctim at January 24, 2006 11:49 AM

Marysdude,

Unfortunately, kctim’s proposal IS fair. The system you and I are proposing, instead of being a “fair” one, is a merciful one.

You see, I’m a Christian. I believe that Someone who never did anything wrong died for my sins a long time ago. When I consider that He suffered for what I have done, I’m quite thankful that the world is not “fair”, and am willing to work to make it less “fair” every day!

That’s why I support a progressive tax. Because the poor shouldn’t be asked to shoulder their “fair share” of the burden. There are those of us who are stronger who should shoulder that burden for them.

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at January 24, 2006 11:49 AM

Marysdude,

Unfortunately, kctim’s proposal IS fair. The system you and I are proposing, instead of being a “fair” one, is a merciful one.

You see, I’m a Christian. I believe that Someone who never did anything wrong died for my sins a long time ago. When I consider that He suffered for what I have done, I’m quite thankful that the world is not “fair”, and am willing to work to make it less “fair” every day!

That’s why I support a progressive tax. Because the poor shouldn’t be asked to shoulder their “fair share” of the burden. There are those of us who are stronger who should shoulder that burden for them.

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at January 24, 2006 11:50 AM

kctim,

What right do you have to tell another person how to use his money?

Then why force people to pay taxes at all? What right do we have to do that?

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at January 24, 2006 11:52 AM

RC
We are now a dependent people. I know a tax system, “fair to all,” would take time.
I also am aware that some people really do need help.
Cutting “nanny” programs will put more money into the peoples hands and will give the people the choice on how to live their own lives.
Instead of voting for the party who promises me more govt money, I could then vote for the person who does the best job in dealing with govt matters like crime, diplomacy and the budget.

People should be able to control their own lives and the route they take should be left to them alone.

Posted by: kctim at January 24, 2006 12:04 PM

MILLIONS of votes AP and most believe as I do.

Duh. I’m one of ‘em, kctim. If the Democratic Party was trying to take away my gun, I wouldn’t be a Democrat.

Posted by: American Pundit at January 24, 2006 12:21 PM

I caught those two on Meet the Press (with Mary in the middle) and wondered what this column would think about Bagala calling Zell Miller his “mentor”. As I recall old Zell had some pretty strong medicine for the party about a year ago.

You can’t moderate progressives; you guys know this. The best thing is to let the Democratic Party complete the transformation from a big tent to the progressive liberal agenda and hope a third party can rally around some charismatic national figure. Hec Perot was a wacko and he got almost 20%!

Posted by: George in SC at January 24, 2006 12:34 PM

RC
To pay for expenses needed to run govt, not for govt to run “the people.”

Mercy is a personal decision.

EVERY American should gladly accept doing their “fair share.”

AP
Ok, duh, so I’m a dunce.
That still does nothing to convince millions of voters to vote for your party.

Posted by: kctim at January 24, 2006 12:47 PM

What do you, Ron Brown, propose as an alternative to Marysdude’s plan?

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at January 24, 2006 08:02 AM

Flat rate no deductions. Everybody, even the welfare bums, pays the same rate.
Let’s use 10% just to keep it simple. Someone making $10,000 would pay $1,000. Someone making $100,000 would pay $10,000. While someone making $1,000,000 would pay $100,000.
Any other type of tax scale is punitive and the only reason for having it is to punish sucess.

8. Max tax is 50% of all income above $85,000.

Posted by: Marysdude at January 23, 2006 10:24 PM

Looks to me like Marysdude’s plan calls for a 50% tax Rob.

Marysdude,
Comeon, your trying to say that luck is the only reason someone makes a lot of money? Give me a break. I’ve made a fair share of money over the last 19 years. NONE OF IT WAS LUCK. It took hard work.
Just because someone is willing to work for what they get is no reason to punish them through higher taxes. If fact maybe we ought to punish those that don’t want to work and live on our tax dollars through high taxes. Maybe they’ll get off their lazy asses and get a job.
I’m not against helping those that really need help. But when you have folks living on our tax dollars that are 5th & 6th generation welfare, it’s time to make them get a job.

Posted by: Ron Brown at January 24, 2006 12:50 PM

Ron Brown,

Looks to me like Marysdude’s plan calls for a 50% tax Rob.

Marysdude’s plan calls for a 50% tax of everything over $85,000. So, if you make billions of dollars in one year, you’re still not paying 50% of the part under $85,000, and you’re paying NOTHING on the first $25,000. So your total taxes paid would NEVER be 50% of your total income, no matter how much you made.

You might want to reread Marysdude’s plan again, as you obviously misunderstood it the first time.

Any other type of tax scale is punitive and the only reason for having it is to punish sucess.

So giving to the poor is bad, unless you also give the same amount to the rich? Are churches that feed the hungry “punishing success” by not feeding the millionaires, too?

I don’t get your logic here. Everyone is being treated equally under Marysdude’s plan. Just because your 1st dollar made is taxed differently than your 1 millionth dollar doesn’t mean that you’re being punished in any way.

By your logic, a flat percentage tax is punative as well, as rich people would have to pay more money than poor people. The only “fair” tax, under this logic, would be one that assigned the same dollar amount of taxes to everyone.

I’m not against helping those that really need help. But when you have folks living on our tax dollars that are 5th & 6th generation welfare, it’s time to make them get a job.

Here’s where the Democrats and Republicans seem to differ the most. Democrats assume that all poor people are poor because the Man keeps them down, while Republicans assume that all poor people are poor because they’re lazy bums. The truth is that there is a good mixture of both. The hard part is trying to sort them out systematically.

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at January 24, 2006 01:34 PM

Ron:

I’m in favor of a flat tax, but I’d modify it slightly at the top and at the bottom. Using your 10% taxation rate, the $1000 coming out of the person making $10,000 has a far greater impact than the $100,000 coming out of the person making $1 million.

I’d do something on the order of not taxing the first portion of anyone’s income (the portion could be between $10-25,000, as I see it). This way, those really making small dollars wouldn’g pay out. Or I’d tax them something, but a smaller percentage.

At the high end of the income scale, I’d hit them a little heavier. So my flat tax would really be a bit like a bell curve, with roughly 80% in the middle, and 10% on each edge getting a different tax. Get rid of the loopholes, the deductions and all that crap, and you’d need fewer people to monitor taxes, which would save money as well.

Of course, accountants, CPA’s and tax attorneys wouldn’t be too thrilled, nor H&R Block or TurboTax. But hey, it would work better, wouldn’t it?

Posted by: joebagodonuts at January 24, 2006 01:40 PM

joebagodonuts,

So your tax plan differs from Marysdude’s mainly on the level of “flatness” of the plan. Yours just has fewer steps in it. Fair enough.

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at January 24, 2006 02:03 PM

Ron

“Comeon, your trying to say that luck is the only reason someone makes a lot of money? Give me a break”

Not the only reason, but it is certainly the primary reason that effects every other factor in one’s life. Think about your own situation-I’m sure you’d like to believe that you got where you are exclusively on work ethic alone but Im sure it’s not true. Sure, there will always be lazy people who don’t want to work, but I personally doubt that this is the norm for the majority of the impoverished in this country. The more of their money they can keep, the greater chance for them to improve their situations or at least the more goods and services they could consume.
I know that alot of people-mostly Repubs-would have a problem with the Marysdude tax plan based on her reasoning and that’s fine. It seems to me that “dude” and Rob make no bones about the fact that their ideas are based on compassion rather than “fairness” as a flat tax would propose. Sounds good to me.

Posted by: J.D. at January 24, 2006 02:07 PM

Another difference Ron.
Reps want the choice to give to the poor, Liberals want the govt to do it for them.

I also would like your input on this:
It is your belief that govt should force people to take care of the poor because YOU believe that is whats right. Why is it ok for the govt to force me to accept and support YOUR beliefs?
I do not expect govt to enforce MY beliefs onto you by asking it to force you to NOT give aid to the poor.
Shouldn’t our beliefs be a personal thing? One that we support by doing what we think is right and hope that others follow? Or do we have govt impose our personal beliefs onto others?

Charity is best left to the individual, not the govt.

Posted by: kctim at January 24, 2006 02:08 PM

Marysdude
Forgive me for saying so, but your writings sound llike the ravings of a small child: “it’s not fair”. It’s not fair that some people work harder than others; it’s not fair that some people have a vision and the courage to pursue it; it’s not fair,not fair, not fair!
What is not fair is a tax system that penalizes hard work and the accumulation of wealth. What is fair is a tax system that takes an equal percentage of accumulated wealth from everyone after a poverty level has been established. Remove all deductions and exemptions and set the tax rate at a sustainable level. Also remove the Social Security collections from the General Fund and keep them out. Eliminate all Federal programs that are not in line with the Constitutional vision of government.

That would be fair.

Posted by: John Back at January 24, 2006 02:13 PM

“It seems to me that “dude†and Rob make no bones about the fact that their ideas are based on compassion rather than “fairness†as a flat tax would propose. Sounds good to me”

Its based on what THEY see as compassion and they should be free to support their beliefs in their own personal way.
They should not be free to force me to accept and support their personal beliefs.
Making somebody dependent is not compassionate.
Allowing everybody to be their own person is.

Posted by: kctim at January 24, 2006 02:19 PM

kctim,

It is your belief that govt should force people to take care of the poor because YOU believe that is whats right. Why is it ok for the govt to force me to accept and support YOUR beliefs?

There are some beliefs that we do, through our government, force on others. Examples include our beliefs in the right to life (thus banning murder), property (thus banning stealing), etc. Every time we (a) prohibit a behavior or (b) force a behaviour, we are imposing our beliefs on someone else. That is a fact of life, kctim.

Now, you might not like the idea of the government being charitable. I can accept that. But you haven’t addressed yet the fact that progressive taxes make fiscal sense. It doesn’t make sense to place the tax burden onto those who can’t or won’t carry it. When given the choice between paying taxes and buying food, most will choose to buy food. And yes, there are the lazy bums who will choose to pay their cable bill instead of paying taxes. In either case, your flat tax has collected nothing from those people.

Put the burden at the high end of income, where people CAN pay it. Otherwise, you’ll be wasting even more money incarcerating half the country’s poor for not paying their taxes.

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at January 24, 2006 02:27 PM

Either party could get my vote if they made Balancing the Budget their #1 financial priority.

Rob,

Then I guess you will be voting for Democrats. I regularly go to Thomas and read bills of interest to me. I have seen proposals, many times, in Democratic sponsored bills that would re-institute the pay-go system. Unfortunately, these proposals are usually within other bills dealing with other issues, so they are not always easy to find, but they are there. The image problem that Democrats face is that they must introduce their legislation to a Republican congress. Nothing gets out of Congress, without their blessing. Nothing. So, the Dems get branded as having no ideas because all they can hope to accomplish is to rally the nation against bad legislation, such as Bush’s Social Security Reform.

One bill that carried a pay-go proposal was a bill addressing Social Security, introduced by Democrat Rep. Robert Wexler of Florida, H. R. 2472, the Social Security Forever Act of 2005. Of course, it has been locked up in committee, never to escape. It’s unfortunate, if we had a one purpose per bill rule, we may actually know where both sides truly stand on the issues, not to mention pork barrel projects would be much more difficult to pass on their own merits.

From the Democrat’s Budget - FAQ:

“Pay-Go†(pay-as-you-go) is a system that Democrats want to put in place in order to return to fiscal responsibility and keep American priorities in place. Pay-Go means that spending increases, as well as tax cuts, need to be offset by cuts in other areas – like fewer corporate tax breaks. It is the same approach millions of Americans take when they figure out their own personal budgets.

The Pay-Go system is a Democratic system that was used successfully during the 1990’s to balance the federal budget for the first time in a generation, turning budget deficits into budget surpluses. But Republicans now in control of Congress have refused to reinstate Pay-Go rules. Democrats believe Pay-Go rules that apply to both spending and tax cuts would be a first step toward truly reigning in budget deficits.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at January 24, 2006 02:28 PM

JayJay,

Then I guess you will be voting for Democrats. I regularly go to Thomas and read bills of interest to me. I have seen proposals, many times, in Democratic sponsored bills that would re-institute the pay-go system. Unfortunately, these proposals are usually within other bills dealing with other issues, so they are not always easy to find, but they are there.

I believe you missed it when I said “#1 financial priority”. If they’re sticking Pay-Go on as a rider to other bills, instead of touting it as the single most important change they’re offering our country, then it’s obviously not a priority to them.

This is another case of screwed up priorities on the part of the Democrats. Sure, they may support Pay-Go. But they’re too busy screaming about abortion rights, gay marriage, and Iraq for the rest of us to have faith that they actually give a damn about the budget. Start talking about the issues that most Americans actually care about, and you might win some votes!

I honestly don’t care if you’re a fiscal conservative or a fiscal liberal — show me fiscal responsibility!

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at January 24, 2006 02:42 PM

RC
Very interesting, thanks.
So why do so many think it would be wrong for the govt to stop abortions? Are you saying if the majority voted for it, it would be ok to force the pro-life belief onto those who are pro-choice?
The majority don’t think gays should marry, they believe it is only between a man and a woman. Should we just accept their belief and forget about it being a personal choice for those involved?
These too, are facts of life Rob. Why is it ok for some but not others? Why all the noise about “choice” if all we are going to do is pick only the ones we support?

“But you haven’t addressed yet the fact that progressive taxes make fiscal sense”

Yes I did. Taxes should only be used to run govt, not make the people dependent.
They do not make sense because our govt should not be our caretaker. Eliminate the social programs, which do nothing but create dependancy, and the need for such high taxes will plummet.
Progressive taxes do not treat everyone as equal. We are all either equal or we are not.
If I am forced to contribute more than my share, then I will expect to be treated better.

Posted by: kctim at January 24, 2006 03:03 PM

Rob:

So your tax plan differs from Marysdude’s mainly on the level of “flatness” of the plan.

Well…yeaaahhhh. I guess if you look at it that way, then EVERY tax plan differs on the level of “flatness”.

Seriously, I don’t see much commonality in a tax plan that has a 50% tax rate as soon as you hit 85K and one that has a slight increase for the wealthy. I purposely didn’t include statistics or percentages in my comment because they detract from the idea.

Dan posted that 17% flat tax would cover the budget, I believe. There wouldn’t be any need under my idea to ever take 50% of someone’s earnings for taxes.

Whattaya think?

Posted by: joebagodonuts at January 24, 2006 03:27 PM

kctim,

So why do so many think it would be wrong for the govt to stop abortions? Are you saying if the majority voted for it, it would be ok to force the pro-life belief onto those who are pro-choice?

Abortion is a sticky issue without an easy answer. It’s a life vs. liberty debate, and not one I look forward to entering again…

…however, if the requisite amount of people made the steps to overturn the law and ban abortion, then yes, they would have the right to do that. At this time, it would require a Constitutional amendment (barring any change in judicial precident) for that to happen.

The majority don’t think gays should marry, they believe it is only between a man and a woman. Should we just accept their belief and forget about it being a personal choice for those involved?

I consider this to be a different issue entirely. In the abortion case, we’re talking about life vs. liberty, both of which are (debatably) Constitutional rights. Pro-choice folks defend the rights of the mother, while pro-life folks defend the rights of the child. But I still don’t know whose rights the anti-gay-marriage crowd is defending. It should be an issue completely unrelated to them, but for some reason it isn’t.

But, again, if they managed to overturn the appropriate laws (amending the Constitution if necessary), then yes, they would have the right to dictate it.

Yes I did. Taxes should only be used to run govt, not make the people dependent. They do not make sense because our govt should not be our caretaker. Eliminate the social programs, which do nothing but create dependancy, and the need for such high taxes will plummet.

Again, I’m not talking about social programs. A progressive tax is not a social program. If you want to debate welfare, then we can do that, but so far I’ve been debating tax law.

High taxes or low, there are those in poverty who simply can’t afford them. There are others in poverty who are too lazy to pay them. So trying to collect from them is a futile endeavor.

Progressive taxes do not treat everyone as equal. We are all either equal or we are not.

By that definition, flat-rate taxes don’t treat everyone as equal either. Rich people pay more than poor people. To treat everyone “equal” would be a headcount tax, where everyone paid the same dollar amount.

The plan presented by Marysdude treats every PERSON as equal, but doesn’t treat every DOLLAR as equal. Everyone pays the same rate on the first $25,000 that they make. They each pay the same rate on the next $10,000, etc. Those that make $1,000,000 all pay the same rate on that one millionth dollar. The fact that some never make enough to reach that rate is irrelevant. All PEOPLE are taxed equally.

A system that changes your OVERALL tax rate as you increase in income WOULD be treating people differently. But that’s not what we’re talking about here.

If I am forced to contribute more than my share, then I will expect to be treated better.

I agree. I just don’t agree on what “my share” is.

The fact is that some people ARE treated better than others. When was the last time you were invited to dinner at the White House? When was the last time a Senator took a personal phone call from you? When was the last time you had a one-on-one chat with your Congressional Representative? When money talks, politicians jump.

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at January 24, 2006 03:50 PM

But they’re too busy screaming about abortion rights, gay marriage, and Iraq for the rest of us to have faith that they actually give a damn about the budget.

Rob,

Screaming about abortion rights? When? When they are challenged by Neo-Cons. Screaming about gay marriage? I wish! Most avoid the subject for fear of losing votes. Screaming about Iraq. Yes they are, and rightly so. Go over to my post The M-Street Project and watch the videos of town hall meetings held by Nancy Pelosi and John Murtha and see what they are screaming about (you need RealPlayer, if you don’t have it you can download it at the end of my post. Then come back and tell me that what they are screaming about is unreasonable. Then follow the link in my original comment above and read what the Democrats are saying about the budget (there are more links there too concerning the budget.) They have obviously put some thought into the subject. Like it or not, burying initiatives in legislation is how Congress works. Only when we have a one purpose per bill rule, will we truly be able to figure out where our representatives stand on the issues.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at January 24, 2006 04:03 PM

marysdude,

The problem is not inadequately taxing income, the problem is that most wealth is not income. Looking only at income is the best way to continue our slide of “all wealth to the rich”. If you remember Forbes’ campaign platform of a flat tax was widely ridiculed from all sides, and there are good reasons for it.

My preference is a wealth tax, similar to that which Florida uses as a state tax. In this case, everybody would be taxed at some miniscule rate (on the order of 1-2%) of their net worth, excluding some things such as their home and cars and with some basic deductions to help people with little net worth and income.

Posted by: Dave at January 24, 2006 04:07 PM

Rob
I only brought gay marriage and abortion because they also deal with personal choice. Didn’t mean to seem like I wanted to debate either of them. Pretty sure we are on about the same page with them anyways.

I know you are not talking about social programs. Progressive taxes are thought to bring more money into the till. I am saying we would not need all this extra money if we got rid of these ridiculous social programs.
With less tax money needed, the poor would have less of a tax burden and would be able to keep their own money. With less taxes being taken from us, collecting taxes would be easier.
Flat tax does treat everyone as equal and gives you a choice.
Punishing success like dude suggests, does nothing but hold people back and give them reason to find loopholes.

“I agree. I just don’t agree on what “my share†is”

That is why I say it is a personal choice and not a govt mandate.
Only you, can fairly determine what your “share” is. It is not any of my business on how you live your life or spend your money.
You shouldnt expect me to support what you think is right and I shouldnt expect you to support what I think is right.
If its a cause we truly believe in, we should lead by example and hope others follow, not force them to.

Posted by: kctim at January 24, 2006 04:19 PM

joebagodonuts,

Well…yeaaahhhh. I guess if you look at it that way, then EVERY tax plan differs on the level of “flatnessâ€.

Exactly!

Dan posted that 17% flat tax would cover the budget, I believe. There wouldn’t be any need under my idea to ever take 50% of someone’s earnings for taxes.

I think you’re focusing too much on that 50% number. If spending were cut appropriately (as is assumed in dan’s 17% number), then there wouldn’t be a need to take 50% of anything. You drop the lowest end (below the poverty line) to 0%, and increase the highest end (however you wish to define it) by enough to compensate (34%, or whatever it would end up being). Taking what’s left, drop the lower end of it to, say, 8.5%, and raise the higher end to compensate (25.5%?). Leave the middle at 17%.

Don’t focus so much on the specific numbers, as they were all pulled out of my darker orifaces anyway. What you, Marysdude, and I all seem to agree upon (and what kctim vehemently opposes) is:

* The lowest X amount of income is tax-free for everyone.

* Two or more stratas of income exist above that. Income in each strata is taxed the same for everyone, no matter what their total income is. This prevents the old “I made just enough extra to get bumped into a new tax bracket, which lowered my take-home pay” dilemma.

* Remove all the loopholes, deductions, etc. that people use to avoid paying taxes.

When you boil the plans down to their essentials, they’re really not that different. Agreed?

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at January 24, 2006 04:20 PM

kctim,

I agree entirely that cutting social programs would make the tax burden easier to bear. And, yes, a lower tax burden would be easier for poor people to pay. But, at the same time, a lower tax burden would be easier for rich people to ignore.

When the tax rate is low enough that it doesn’t adversely effect the poor, the rich won’t be complaining about progressive taxes, because it will be such a miniscule portion of their income that they won’t notice.

I’m not sure how much experience you have had with poverty, but I’ve been at points in my life where paying the rent and buying food were mutually exclusive — there wasn’t enough money to do both. There are people in this country who live their entire lives that way. Most of them live in areas of the country where steady work isn’t available (lower Mississippi River flood plains come to mind), so they don’t even know where the next paycheck is coming from. Even if your flat tax rate was 5%, I’m guessing most of them would choose to spend that money on food instead. How would you suggest we enforce such a tax rate on these poorest folks? We can’t reposess their houses, because they don’t own houses. We can’t seize their wages, because they don’t even know where they’ll be coming from.

I don’t see how such a tax system can be enforced.

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at January 24, 2006 04:37 PM

“I’m not sure how much experience you have had with poverty”

I was born when my parents were 15 and we lived on our own in a town of about 150 along the Mississippi River. Had three kids by the time they were 18.
No indoor plumbing or elec. until I was 8 maybe 10. One meal a day when we could.
They did their best and didn’t expect the govt to do it for them.
I know very well what poverty is.

“How would you suggest we enforce such a tax rate on these poorest folks?”

If they have no wages, there is nothing to tax. It is an extreme situation dealing with a minority of people. With taxes being used only for govt, their contribution would not be missed.

Posted by: kctim at January 24, 2006 05:09 PM

kctim,

I know very well what poverty is.

Fair enough.

If they have no wages, there is nothing to tax.

I’m not talking about people with no wages. I’m talking about people with very low wages, and no steady income (living odd-job to odd-job).

It is an extreme situation dealing with a minority of people. With taxes being used only for govt, their contribution would not be missed.

Then why even charge them with those taxes to begin with? Why make criminals out of them just because they’re poor?

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at January 24, 2006 05:46 PM

>>Then why even charge them with those taxes to begin with? Why make criminals out of them just because they’re poor?

rob,

Because kc thinks the only one in America who isn’t a criminal already is Dubbya…

Posted by: Marysdude at January 24, 2006 05:59 PM

Because kc thinks the only one in America who isn’t a criminal already is Dubbya…

Wow, Marysdude… THAT was uncalled for!

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at January 24, 2006 06:19 PM

>>Wow, Marysdude… THAT was uncalled for!

Rob,

You’re right. I apologize…kc, I got carried away.

>>Forgive me for saying so, but your writings sound llike the ravings of a small child: “it’s not fairâ€. It’s not fair that some people work harder than others; it’s not fair that some people have a vision and the courage to pursue it; it’s not fair,not fair, not fair!

beck,

I apologize to you too, as I meant no harm by sounding like a small child. I’ll try to do better in the future. One thing though…only once in my postings have I used the word fair, and that was in response to a kc posting. My point is that there are ways to tax without doing real harm to anyone.

It does not harm a wealthy person to pay more taxes than their poorer neighbors and the wealthy can do it. To ask the neighbor to contribute more is squeezing blood out of a turnip.

But, I’ll try to limit my whining, so you adults can carry on your adult postings.

Next time YOU come up with a viable solution.

Posted by: Marysdude at January 24, 2006 07:15 PM

>>Wow, Marysdude… THAT was uncalled for!

Rob, you are right,

kc, I apologize…I got carried away.

Posted by: Marysdude at January 24, 2006 07:17 PM

We wouldn’t have so many poor people if the schools tested each child, much like they do other cross the nation tests, for aptitudes, and abilities long before high school. Then as the children, regardless of ANY living conditions they come from, rich or poor, clean or dirty, CEO’s homes to farming employees, mature the states can make sure they are educated for the jobs they are capable of. Repeated testing as the child matures will give a pretty good idea of what they, as an adult, could do with a good education. But no, we educate them, hoping they will continue on to college, and SO MANY drop out! They end up on welfare rolls raising children on DHS incomes. Not all, of course, not even a majority end up this way, but by far too many.

Posted by: Shtara at January 24, 2006 07:31 PM

Here’s where the Democrats and Republicans seem to differ the most. Democrats assume that all poor people are poor because the Man keeps them down, while Republicans assume that all poor people are poor because they’re lazy bums. The truth is that there is a good mixture of both. The hard part is trying to sort them out systematically.

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at January 24, 2006 01:34 PM

I don’t assume that because a person is poor that they’re a bum. I know of servral folks that work hard and are poor. They lack the skills necessary to make better money than they do. I have a lot of respect for these folks. They’re not crying about how they’re put down by the rich and expecting the Government to take care of them.
It’s the 5th & 6th generation welfare bums that I have a hard time with. They don’t want to work and think that the Government owes them a living.
Like a lot of other stores I take food stamps at mine. All you have to do is watch the folks come in with their food stamp cards and you’ll get what I’m talking about. Close to 98% of them are able to work. And most I’ve asked told me they had no intention of working.
Only 4 of my regular customers that use food stamps really need the help. Two are elderly folks that are barely getting by on their SS checks. One is disabled to the point he cann’t work. One is making minimium wage and has 8 kids to feed.
These folks I feel sorry for. The rest I have no use for.

Posted by: Ron Brown at January 25, 2006 12:08 AM

Another difference Ron.
Reps want the choice to give to the poor, Liberals want the govt to do it for them.

I also would like your input on this:
It is your belief that govt should force people to take care of the poor because YOU believe that is whats right. Why is it ok for the govt to force me to accept and support YOUR beliefs?
I do not expect govt to enforce MY beliefs onto you by asking it to force you to NOT give aid to the poor.
Shouldn’t our beliefs be a personal thing? One that we support by doing what we think is right and hope that others follow? Or do we have govt impose our personal beliefs onto others?

Charity is best left to the individual, not the govt.

Posted by: kctim at January 24, 2006 02:08 PM

I don’t expect the Government to force my beliefs on anyone. And I don’t know of any true conservitives that do. How did you get the idea that I beleive that? I know I’ve never said it.
Our belief are personal. I happen to try to help those folks that need it. I believe that it’s the Christian thing to do. The Govt has no business telling anyone to help or not to help anyone. That is a matter of personal choise.
And yes, charity is best left to the individual, not the Government.

Your idea of flat tax might work. I wouldn’t really have any problem with the first say $10,000 to $25,000 of income not being taxed. As far as a higher percentage for those making over a certian amount, I don’t know about. But it would still be better than what we have now.

Posted by: Ron Brown at January 25, 2006 12:27 AM

J.D.
I don’t believe in luck.

Posted by: Ron Brown at January 25, 2006 12:32 AM

RC
Odd job to odd job is primarily paid in cash. I have taken advantage of this many times.
Would this cause more employers to start paying in cash? Maybe, but it should be up to the people to raise the tax rate through a vote.

Rob, I don’t mind not taxing “legit” people living in poverty. I would be all for compromises on taxes and doing whats best for Americans. But it has got to be “fair” and treat everybody as equals.

Dude
“Because kc thinks the only one in America who isn’t a criminal already is Dubbya…”

www.infowars.com

“You’re right. I apologize…kc, I got carried away”

I was a little surprised dude. I felt as if we all were doing a pretty good job of keeping politics out of this.
We all are hard headed about our personal views. Ms. Adrienne :) says its like talking to a brick wall when talking to me. I don’t mind, I feel the same way when talking to you all. But I respect all of your opinions and probably agree more than most would believe.

Thanks for the apology, we all get carried away sometimes.
My turn to apologize is probably right around the corner, lol.

Posted by: kctim at January 25, 2006 09:31 AM

Paul,
I am not sure, but “progressive patriotism” sounds an awful lot like “nationalism” to me.

As I have mentioned before on this site, the reason the republican’s are so often compared to the Nazis would be along the lines of a nationalistic partriotism. One that does not respect other countries, peoples, cultures or opinions.

It is a belief in the righness of their natione regardless of its actions. Nothing is out of bounds because the ends justifies the means. There is not an understanding of reasonable differences, it is an all or nothing, take no prisioners attitude.

It is the closing of public policy formulation meetings that go unchallenged because the minority is the minority (this no say) and the majority is unbable or unwilling to make their own party be responsible to them.

It is the belief that only criminals have anything to hide so when complaints about the infringement of civil rights is discussed then the person must be a criminal, supporter of terrorists or “anti-American.” Yet, when it comes time for the government to be open with the American people then everything is secret and hidden. I am not talking about national security here, but our energy policy and the tax breaks to the HMOs. Forget about the government being honest about needing to carefully interpret the 4th Amendment because we are in a war with no end!

BENEFITS AND ABUSE
I know of a doctor and his wife who moved to Wisc. because of the state educational benefits their autistic child will receive here in Wisc. They were much better than where they were from. Would they not be on the same moral plane as a welfare cheat?

When it comes time to honestly evaluate the costs… look at the costs of business tax breaks versus jobs created. How much does each of those new jobs cost the state in net loss or gain revenue?

When the Republicans give $22 Billion over the next 10 years to HMOs how many discretionary programs take a hit?

When corruption and illegal behvior continues decade after decade… what is the cost? The bail out of the Savings and Loans? The recent scandals with Enron and Tyco and other?

It seems as if the Republicans are keeping