Third Party & Independents: Archives

Misha, there is class warfare in America, and the Democrats are only giving back what the Republicans have been dishing themselves.

Have you taken note of Welfare reform, labor outsourcing, disproportionate tax cuts, and heavily skewed prosecutions on Blue-Collar crime as opposed to white collar? It seems that since the New Deal, the upper income brackets have seen fit to treat any program that benefits the poor, or the ostensibly uncompetitive, as being a drain on their resources. However, the corporate welfare, the tax shelters, and all the discounts on investment and inheritance, they say are necessary.

They may be, but the problem is, it’s difficult to resist the political temptations to agree, even when it wasn’t necessarily true.

The question is not who should win, because if either side won all the time, it would be quite unjust. No, the question of who should win the individual battles, I think, should be the focus of even-handed debate.

As for the tax burden, you have a choice- The economies of scale, with limited margins, or greater margins, but with fewer sources of income. If you actually look at the distribution of wealth in a America, it resembles the distribution of the tax burden. The more you take it out of that distribution, the more you will end up putting more of burden on those who have less disposable income to hold up under it. The Middle class is the engine of the economy, the source of the prosperity of the country whether or not the upper class does its job. If you grind that Middle class down, the economy will follow suit.

Misha, an excellently written piece of sophistry. I will agree with you that we Americans are quite spoiled by our national largesse. After that, my common sense dictates that we part to different paths.

There really is a group of folks out there some 44 million strong without health insurance, and this President has moved to relieve hospitals of some obligations to assist them if they have no other means to pay. That is one America.

Here in the hill country of Texas where I live, their really are fine upstanding German descent Republican Americans who live in 98% white communities. These communities are so complected because these fine Republicans would barely give a brown skinned person the time of day, let alone a job that would sustain home ownership in their community. That is another America.

There are 100’s of thousands of mentally ill homeless persons in the U.S. who remain ill and homeless due to the false, and now well documented, efforts of our society to remedy their plight with drugs promised by the pharmaceuticals to change their lives. Ever ask a schizophrenic what time of day it is? I have. They couldn’t possibly know what time to take their pills if they had them, and being homeless, they rarely wear a Timex or own a Big Bend alarm clock. That is another America.

I could go on in this vain, but, will end with just one more America. The America Bush supports when he “wants to offer a tax break for those who support their grandchildren even though the kids are independently wealthy.” New York Times business section.

That is the problem with sophistry. There is no requirement that it have anything to do with the tangible empirically evidenced world we live in. Excellently written perspective from the right, however.

lets do these one at a time

Welfare reform - Welfare, by definition, is still redistributing money from rich to poor. Something that is in complete tention with the founding principles of our nation. I will admit that welfare reform “Takes away” money from the poor, but only to the extent that it takes less from the rich.

Labor outsourcing- This is one i really dont get. If labor is “outsourced” basically what that means is that starving people in other countries get jobs- How the heck is that a bad thing? On the global view, it is actually much better for poverty, since people in america can always find jobs, while people in other countries will literally die if they can have these jobs, which by the way, they have a right to because they are willing to do them for less money.

disproportionate tax cuts - The rich already pay way too much as a % of their income, so bringing down the top marginal rate is just to the extent that it gets us closer to a flat tax.

heavily skewed prosecutions on Blue-Collar crime as opposed to white collar- I dont really have any facts on this, so I will take your word for it. I do know the drug war is terrible, and so is the way it is prosecuted against “crack” while less so against other drugs.

Finally, we can get rid of tax shelter problems with a flat tax, I think, and corporate welfare needs to go as well.

sophistry : “deliberately invalid argument displaying ingenuity in reasoning in the hope of deceiving someone” - please tell me how this isnt a personal attack?

Misha, my apology, I used the word sophistry by the following definition:

Webster’s 1913 Dictionary

Definition:

\Soph”ist*ry\, n. [OE. sophistrie, OF. sophisterie.]
1. The art or process of reasoning; logic. [Obs.]

2. The practice of a sophist; fallacious reasoning; reasoning sound in appearance only.

This was the definition I used. It was never my intent to state that you were deliberatly trying to deceive anyone. Only that your argument does not stand up to readily observeable instances which I replied with, in my opinion.

About the common complaint that the rich pay way too much taxes.

On Rush Limbaugh’s website, he shows a statistic that the top 50% of wage earners pay 96% of income taxes. Imagine that! 50 vs. 96! How can you argue that a 46% disparity isn’t wrong??

Well, the top 50% of wage earners make 88% of the income. So, in fact, the gross disproportionality you complain about is a difference of 8%. Also, the top 1% pay 37% of income taxes (not 50%), and that’s on 20% of income. Finally, when you take non-income taxes into account, the overall tax burden is less progressive than you complain about.

http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/pub/irs-soi/01in01ts.xls

Apology accepted- I would like to defend what i was saying… note my disclaimer at the start of the posting - “That doesn’t mean there cant or shouldn’t be improvement”. I think your point about mental health is a big area thats needs improvement, for example. I think my major point stands up to scrutinity pretty easily, and I dont think you disproved it at all- which is that the average american is pretty darn well off, so the use of the two-americas rhetoric is not appropriate and useless. I backed that point up with several facts about the standard of living in america for the average person, and even posted a link to a reputable author whose book detailed all of my contentions about the average american in full. I dont think thats bad in terms of evidence for a short posting on a political blog…

“people in America can always find jobs”…

well that explains the 8.5 million unemployed people in America….

Well there is always a natural level of unemployment.. in any case, Bush announced his new immigration policy with the justification that we need to have these people in the country because they do jobs americans refuse to do. From that I infer that there are jobs avaliable that people wont take. In any case, I see no injustice, and in fact, I see a great moral good when a person starving in another country gets to work a job that is “outsourced” from America because Americans refuse to do it at the rate that the man in the 3rd world country would LOVE to do it. Do you disagree?

I got called on my sloppy numbers for the tax burden- so i got the real numbers(http://www.papillonsartpalace.com/taBx.htm)

Here are what I found:

The wealthiest 1 percent pay over 1/3 of all income taxes, while their share of the nation’s taxable income is 19 percent. Thats a pretty big gap. Even if you think thats not enough of a gap, you gotta admit that this is hardly a tax system in which the rich are the ones benefiting…

Taxpayers in the bottom half paid only 4 percent of income taxes in 1999, according to the IRS. The situation should remain the same or lower under Bush’s plan because there are no provisions for raising taxes on those classes in the bill, as far as i know.

this one i loved, so i will give the direct quote:
“Looking ahead, the 10-year, $1.35 trillion tax cut enacted last year reduces income taxes in three steps, with the final step coming in 2006. In that year, according to the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation, taxpayers earning over $100,000 a year will pay almost 59 percent of all income taxes.

Those with annual incomes of less than $30,000 a year will pay about 4.4 percent in 2006, roughly the same as they do today.”

Of course these numbers also need to be seen in light of the fact that more and more people are becoming “rich”- but that, my friends, is a very good thing, proving that our economy is working well and allowing plenty of social mobility. So while we have problems in our country, and its important to awknowledge them, we need to keep the problems and the “who is actually paying most of the taxes” factors in proper perspective

Sadly, I believe the most perceptive person on the topic is still prescient today: The Jungle by Upton Sinclair (1906).

“Why rent when you can own?” I got shivers when I read that.

Walter William’s take on this subject in a recent article. Click my name.

Walter Williams conveniently ignores inflation.

His $21,500 in 1980 would be worth $51,153.35 in 2002. Given that he states the per capita GDP only increased to $36,000, it’s growing at less than enough to keep up with inflation.

“Looking ahead, the 10-year, $1.35 trillion tax cut enacted last year reduces income taxes in three steps, with the final step coming in 2006. In that year, according to the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation, taxpayers earning over $100,000 a year will pay almost 59 percent of all income taxes.”

That sounds bad, but my point from before still stands - what percentage of income do those making over $100,000/year make? Without that information, we don’t have context for that statistic. It’ll be less than 59% for sure, but probably not that far off.

Well I dont know those numbers, but I did post the number that the top 1% make 19 % of the nation’s taxable income but pay 1/3 of all income taxes. Whatever you think of the situation, a fairminded observed would have to admit that this is not a situation in which the poor are getting screwed in favor of the top 1%…

Look, Misha, when they outsource jobs, they’re not doing it to compete with overseas corporations, they’re doing so to compete against their own employees, and create gains that even you must admit will only be seen by investors and executives.

As for how it’s wrong, it’s wrong in three ways:

One, it takes jobs away from well-qualified Americans who DO want jobs. They’ll just never agree to wages at that price. Your problem is that you don’t see that as a natural thing, as a natural part of the market. Adam Smith did. he said people have a right to demand just compensation for their work. In fact, he said it was natural that people demand more for the scuzzier, more dishonorable, more dangerous work.

We’ve just taken advantage of the dysfunctional economies and currencies of the third world in order to increase already substantial profits, without having to earn that increase.

If we were to pay our people at the levels other countries do, we would absolutely destroy our economy, because no one would be able to afford buy the consumer products and necessities at the prices our companies place on them.

It’s also wrong, because those companies are essentially pre-empting competition overseas, forcing their industrial development to serve our economy. It also means, as far as I can tell, that their economies are degraded whenever ours goes through the floor. They say in Mexico, with all the Maquiladoras, if the US economy gets a cold, we get pneumonia.

Don’t you see? Unless wages rise overseas, you’ll have a degenerate market, one that, with it’s global connections will drag down the world economy as whole.

The third and final reason goes like this: we need more economic self-sufficency. If we can produce a thing at home, we should. We should also encourage American companies to keep the jobs American, and penalize outsourcing, and capital flight. Today’s businesses have gotten soft, with all that Conservatives and Moderates have done to favor corporate interests. They lost much of their sense of obligation to the rest of society, and they need to come back down to Earth. To those that much is given, much should be required. Otherwise we have an aristocracy in all but name.

Stephen, i understand where you are coming from, but I couldnt disagree more.. taking your points one at a time:

1. “people have a right to demand just compensation for their work”—> What just compensation is is established by the market. Adam Smith also understood the concept of comperative advantage. if a person in another country is willing to do the work for less money, they have a right to the job. You dont have a “right” to a job at a particular rate- you have the right to compete in the labor market for a job. If you limit that competition, and give american workers the benefit, then someone will be harmed.. see bellow..

2.”because those companies are essentially pre-empting competition overseas, forcing their industrial development to serve our economy” - funny, when countries try to develop their own “economies” they tend to lag severely behind in terms of overall economic growth, standard of living ect, than those who open up their boarders to our supposedly parasitic trade. If you were to adopt protectionist policies in america, americans wouldnt be the ones who are hurt really, we are pretty much rich(compared to the countries we generally trade with), and we would be a little less rich, the ones who would be hurt are the workers in other countries that depend upon the jobs that they do for the american consumer. Your model was tried in latin america (ISI) to extraordinary failure.

3. “need more economic self-sufficency”- I take this as the Pat Buchanan-esque argument, which I understand on self-interest, national security grounds, but I think is clearly outwieghed by the benefit we get from free trade- given the basic concept of comperative advantage (since you refered to Adam Smith, i assume you understand this concept). again, I dont know what your political leanings are, but the reason people like Buchanan push these policies is they couldnt care less about people who would be put out of jobs in other countries through these policies. The results from a protectionist anti-outsourcing policy on those people who would lose jobs in countries were they are NO other alternatives would be terrible. I dont know what your philosophical viewpoint is, but that result is unacceptable on both utilitarian and on deonotological terms. To the extent your argument is based upon the self-interest of America as your main concern, I guess I could see where you are coming from, but if you recognize that trade policies have drastic economic and justice ramifications, then I dont see it as a sustainable argument.

The world is changing- we were a manufactoring country once, as we were a farming country before that. It is time for us to move on to other areas, and allow those with a comperative advantage in these two areas to produce them without our government messing with their freedom of trade. We are already destroying farm economies throughout the world with our irresponsible grain subsedies, and any more tarrif that we impose whose goal isnt for a bargaining position to force others to repeal their tarrifs will result in the same problem. Repeal NAFTA and you can cringe when happends to the standard of living in Mexico… but of course, then liberals will be calling for us to give them economic aid to get them back to the level they were before we stopped trading with them on the basis of competition and freedom.

Misha, Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations was predicated on an earlier work, The Theory of Moral Sentiments. In Theory of Moral Sentiments, Smith lays the ground work for what is just. It is incorrect to state that Smith’s definition of ‘just’ compensation is defined by the market. The word ‘Just’ has a very specific meaning to Adam Smith.

That is the problem with economists on both sides of the aisle. They read cliff notes about Wealth of Nations, rarely the book itself in its entirety, and fail to recognize that an understanding of Wealth of Nations can only be obtained by an understanding of Smith’s precedent work, Theory of Moral Sentitments.

Just compensation for Smith is NOT defined by the markets. Compensation may be set by the markets, but a just compensation is set by the values held by the public at large as determined by a common sense of what is required to sustain a livelihood.

You’re right, at the higher reaches, the progressiveness of our tax system shows. Some think it’s too progressive, and some think it’s too regressive, but it’s definitely there.

There still are differences in opportunity for wealthy Americans vs. poor Americans. For example, the best predictor for determining whether a person finishes college in six years is the financial status of that person’s parents. This is a better predictor than the student’s grades or personal achievements or abilities.

But you’re right that the tax system does not contribute to the disparity between the rich and the poor.

I’ve lived out the consequence of the economy you support. I’ve seen my father pretty much make the same money over twenty years while executive compensation skyrocketed. I have no idea what executives really did during those years to deserve such substantial raises in pay. Coincidentally, we have thousands of Americans laid off from these companies. Of course, it’s often the best paid, the most experienced, the best educated.

We are encouraging an economy that works the same way as an underfed athlete- The muscle of the economy is cannibalized to give the economy more energy. We’re burning up the resources of the middle-class to feed the gains of the rich. Without the Middle Class to spend on consumer products, not only does the American economy run into problems, so does the global economy, which has been geared towards American consumerism.

As for Economic self-Sufficiency, we do need a fair amount. We need an economy robust enough to weather the various crisises that pop up in the world from time to time. I don’t think Adam Smith had creative destruction in mind when he came up with his economic theories.

Frankly, I think that whole “unwanted jobs” thing is BS. I should know: I want those kinds of jobs, given my current situation. I just can’t afford to take them at that low of a salary, not with how much I’m charged for the necessities of life. when the lowest paid workers in the country have to eat off of food stamps, that’s a clear indication that the wages they’re attempting to pay us are far too low.

At some point, this behavior isn’t economical, it’s unrealistic. You’ll never be able to get wages that low without adverse social effects. I mean, take a look at the living conditions in the countries that you idolize for their low wages. They’re horrible. Would you want to work there?

Last, but not least, yes, I know the world’s changing. But you know what? I’ve heard it before. I’ve seen it before. And usually, nothing much substantial changes. I should know. I made a point of studying science fiction and fantasy, so I know all about how the rates of change we imagine, and the realities of those changes work. I also know that there is nothing natural about what’s going on. It’s the result of the relaxation of trade policies. It’s the result of companies being able to import their own products to themselves, instead of building them altogether here in America.

Overall, I just get the impression that the costs of globalization exceed the benefits. Shouldn’t we do our business decisions according to that? Isn’t that the essence of it, in the end? Why continue to shoot ourselves in the economic foot?

Misha- Hey this thing termed out cool, great posts. Love it.

Stephen- My biggest question is why people who make lots of money should be punished for this, anything but a flat tax punishes those who prosper. Why do most americans try to incure wealth, to provide for themselves and then also for thier children if they have any. Why should we punished them for doing it better than anyone else. Sure there are people like Paris Hilton who are born into money, however her father earned it and she’s lucky. She shouldn’t be unduely punished for her fathers sucess. It’s not american to punish the son for the sins of the father, if first we declare earning a lot of money a sin which I think un-american itself.
Second- I don’t know the rules of the postings regarding personal stuff, however you mention you and your father and your jobs and that you’d take some jobs but the pay. Even the lower paying jobs can afford a living. I know as I currently work in a Hotel, one of the lowest industries and one of the ones Bush mentioned in his employment for Mexican proposition. I live nicely, not as nice as some, however the key is to live below your means, not with cell phones and new cars etc (This is not a personal indication as i have no idea who you are just an overview of the “low paying jobs”.) I was lucky enough to get a BSW with no debt thats to my parents and plan to go into debt to get a masters and PHD, this is the key to upward mobility and is accessable to all, education. Take out student loans, do well, and soon you will be runing the companies whom you don’t want the entry level jobs from.
In terms of the global economy I think your right, the entire thing is based upon the debt of the american consumer and soon the back of the american consumer will break and the world economy will go into recession. That combined with the Germans and French breaking parts of the EU and their economic laws may spell disaster to the world economy. I have to go to my low paying job now so i must digress.

While the rich and the poor duke it out, us working, middle class folks do all the work and then get half our paychecks carried away to that necessary evil.

If anyone should be bitching… it should be us. But we don’t have time because… well… we’re working.

> My biggest question is why people who make
> lots of money should be punished for this,
> anything but a flat tax punishes those who
> prosper.

Rich people reap *way* more benefits from the government than poor people do, so they pay more. It’s not punishment, it’s just fair payment for services rendered. Here’s my logic:

A poor person gets a basic set of government benefits: military protection, fire and police departments, public schools, etc.

A rich person, on the other hand, gets a whole lot more than that. Since a rich person’s economic footprint and root system is so much larger, a whole new level of government spending must exist to protect not just the lives but also the properties and lifestyles of the rich. The SEC protects the investment marketplace, the FAA keeps air traffic flowing safely and cheaply, the FDA promotes advanced medical research (the benefits of which usually fall to those who can afford it). There are countless goverment programs and expenditures that poor people get NO direct benefit from.

Look at it another way: Even the police are likely to spend vastly more resources to protect a businessperson’s property than they are to protect a poor person’s property. And look how much money state and federal governments spend to put out forest fires in wealthy communities!!

To put it simply, it costs our country a hell of a lot more to protect the lifestyle (and the person) of a rich American than it does to protect the lifestyle of a poor American.

Face it: the poorer you are, the less benefit there is to living in the USA at all. Might as well live in Albania, El Salvador, or Laos (well, you’d probably get health care). Conversely, the richer you are, the better it is to live in the USA. There is no better country in the world in which to be rich.

[You could argue that the poor do benefit from the prosperity of the wealthy: when rich people have a safe climate in which to make money, then poor people will benefit as well… i.e, trickle down economics. But by similar logic you could argue that the working poor are the foundation of the workforce that enables the rich to thrive, and thus their well being is of more value to the rich than the rich’s well being is to the poor. I would say that both are partly right insofar as we are all economically connected.]

Peter Cooper, the 19th century industrialist and philanthropist, once said that the money he had earned in his life (in a nearly tax-free climate, I should add) was not really *his*, but instead he was simply *entrusted* with it on behalf of his fellow Americans. I find that attitude to be almost definitively patriotic.

The tax system, ultimately, is not a matter of simple numeric “fairness” like the rules of a children’s board game. It is a moral issue, though, if you view it as an extension of our own cultural values, which I do. A graduated tax system is an integral part of what I and many others think America should be: a country in which we all agree that we’ve gotta work together for the good of us all. A flat tax is a reflection of a value system in which some people are permitted to extract costly services from the government at a greater rate than others.

Let’s look at it from the reverse point of view: If a flat tax were implemented fairly, then we’d have to dismantle our whole system of having government programs to protect the common good for the rich and the poor at the same time: Things that only rich people need, like air traffic control, investment regulation, advanced medical research, etc, would need to be stricken from the budget and left to rich people to pay for by themselves. Beyond things like military protection against invasion and protection against street crime, it’ll be every man for himself. Laissez-faire. We’ll sink back into robber baronism: economic warlordism and indentured servitude. I don’t want that. I think we should each pay our share for living in a better country, and those who get so much more from it should pay more for it.

-Cf

very well written piece Misha! I find it funny to think that the Democrats long held political strategy of ‘hate the rich’ is a leftover from MEDIEVAL times. :) I saw the John Edwards ad today where he talks of “two Americas”. it made little sense (‘there’s 2 kind of public schools, one for the privileged, one for the rest of us’) and I don’t see any possible way that would make people decide, “heck yeah, I’m going to cast my vote for that trial lawyer worth $70 million, or that male gigolo worth hundreds of millions of his wife’s money.”
No matter how a Republican cuts taxes, it will always be spun as a ‘cut for the rich’. There’s no way around it. The Democratic party will always want to increase taxes on everyone, but will only find politically palatable if they say they’re raising it on the ‘rich’ …

The problem with that argument is it is devoid of any real factual analysis. for example- say I make a million dollars and you make 10,000 dollars a year. How much more services do i get from the government under your logic? I think to be GENEROUS to you, I would say I get maybe 10 times more services, again, I think that is rather generous to your view, given where most funds go (military ect). under a FLAT tax (lets us 10% for simplicity purposes), I would be paying 100,000 in taxes, while you pay 1,000 dollars. Now I am paying a HUNDRED more times more than you for only 10 times as much expenditure done in my service. Even if you were to escalate those numbers and say I get 30 times more services, a flat tax would still tax me too much, if the measure is what we get OUT of government. The flaw in your reasoning is you treat a flat tax like a per-head tax. If you were arguing against a tax system which taxed each per the same amount (say 1000 dollars per person), your reasoning would work. As it is, it fails when applied to a flat tax analysis. And indeed, this is the problem. In order to talk oneself into a moral justification for a flat tax, it takes an incredible amount of post-hoc reasoning. That is you start with the conclusion that you WANT progressive taxation and you try to discover any possible rationale for the system we have other than brute democratic force by the majority- in, in reality, is the only reason and justification for a graduated tax system. If you want to contend that the millionaire actually gets way more than HUNDRED times out of the government than the person making 10,000 dollars a year, well you can do that, but I dont think thats realistic or comports with reality. In fact, the expenditures you admitted work for everyone “military protection, fire and police departments, public schools” are more than 1/100th of our overall government spending, so the reasoning fails on its face rather quickly.

want to contend that the millionaire actually gets way more than HUNDRED times out of the government than the person making 10,000 dollars a year, well you can do that, but I dont think thats realistic or comports with reality. In fact, the expenditures you admitted work for everyone “military protection, fire and police departments, public schools” are more than 1/100th of our overall government spending, so the reasoning fails on its face rather quickly.

Problem, Rob: We have things called brackets. If the higher brackets, which only affect rich people, are the ones that get the biggest dollar value cuts, and which disappear entirely, then it is, by definition, tax cuts for the rich. Go look at the actual changes in the brackets, okay? And what about the investment related taxes? Sure the average worker paying into an IRA or pension fund is somewhat involved, but it’s those people who hold hundreds of thousands, even millions of shares that really benefit. Go look them up, do the math, work the logic. Rich people are being favored. I mean, the estate tax (melodramatically called the DEATH TAX) is something that only kicks in when the value of the estate is more than 600,000. And there are exceptions for farmland that more than cover those people who are land rich but property poor. So what is it? A tax break for people who get free money without working for it.

I don’t mind rich people. I mind people who are weenies about being rich, who complain about how much they’re being taxed, how much they’re being regulated, and yet are willing to inflict all of that on people who hardly have resources like theirs to take on such obligations.

We can weep all we want too over rich people getting more money taken from them, but the fact is, the necessities of life don’t scale to income. The cost of meeting basic needs does not increase with one’s income, nor decrease with one’s poverty. A poor person is going to miss the taxes they pay much more than the rich person, because if all else fails, the richer person can still enjoy luxury with the money that remains with them, so long as they are smart about how they spend it. How does the old Steve Miller Band song go? I can’t complain, but sometimes I still do… Well, that sums up what a lot of this trickle-down bellyaching sounds to me like. If “tax relief” truly is relief, then the first people you’d be giving substantial “relief” to should be the people who need it the most.

Of course, Bush threw in a few hundred dollars in that tax cut of his, but most of the beneficiaries of this bill were not exactly starving, nor living from bill to bill. If you want to make all this stuff out to be humanitarian, then be humanitarian and give the cuts to those for whom it eases economic suffering. Otherwise, call it a tax cut, say outright it’s because you like the rich better than the poor, and stop insulting our intelligence with this faux populism.

I have some comments here.

1. What defines the poor? Is it based on total income or is it based on surplus income? If the total income is enough for the alleged “poor” to get by comfortably, then the point about redistributing income simply doesn’t stand, because no one is actually in lack. A family who can only make ends meet should not attempt to lead luxurious lifestyles. The resultant financial mess is of the family’s own doing and not the fault of others. Personally, I feel that this is a moot point except when applied to those who live below the poverty line.

2. If the advanced benefit systems supposedly only benefit the rich, then why just stop at taxing the rich? Abolish them totally I say. If I am too poor to have a car, fine. Destroy the roads. If I cannot invest in stocks and shares, very well. Close down Wall Street. If I don’t fly often, stop all flights and measures that help maintain air security. The market economy does benefit those who are richer, but it’s the way the system tends to function, and it’s up to humans to make adjustments to attend to the needs of those who have not. Massive taxing of the rich seems to be part of a suspiciously socialistis/communistic package.

3. It seems that what is facing the nation is not a problem about redistribution of wealth, but a social one. Rich people have been painted here as people who steadfastly maintain their bourgeoisie status and the poor people are suggested to be living in extreme poverty. There also appears to be a strong polarization here. But from the responses here, it seems like there is a serious problem with mindsets. There seems like a great undercurrent of resentment towards the rich and that’s not helping the situation at all. Social reforms are a must, but propelling everyone to the “have” status is simply unfeasible and illogical. All sides have to learn to give way. Regrettably, this is not something that mere taxing can do. Someone’s shoulders will get rubbed and will not be happy.

4. A final note, Bush-bashing, calls for social welfare, taxing the rich heavily is all very fine. But there are always consequences. Don’t fight for the sake of fighting. After all the years of polarization, the nation needs to unite. Bickering won’t do anyone any good.

1) What defines the poor? Making less than a certain amount of money a year. Just take a look at what our government considers the poverty line. These are not simply people who are suffering the consequences of trying to live beyond their means. These people are really struggling. And yes, that is possible. In fact you can still be struggling even as a member of the middle class, especially if a member of one’s family suffers from chronic health problems. I know, because I’ve been through it. So, I think it’s a mistake for you to so glibly dismiss lower-income families that way.

2)You miss the point of the greater taxation of the rich. First, the richest one percent are not going to be the people impoverished by that level of taxation. Second, the rich in this country have all kinds of ways of avoiding that level of taxation. Third, it’s far worse for them in Europe, only in the real dysfunctional countries is it better than what we have. And Fourth, they benefit far more than we do from the patronage of politicians. Also, the income tax system as we know is a progressive system, in both meanings of the term. Not Socialist, certainly not communist. It wasn’t meant to punish the rich, but level obligations on them equal to the status their riches give.

3)Most people are not suggesting the impossible. But what they are suggesting is a more equitable system. The breaks are not being given to those who really need them. they’re being given to those for whom the breaks are an added luxury.

Most people who will benefit from Bush’s tax breaks will not be in the need of the help, while the margin of people who could have been helped, will remain victims of their circumstances. And right now, their circumstances are bound to get worse as the budget deficit caused by those tax cuts, begins to eat away at America’s credit rating abroad.

The Rich aren’t hurting. They’ve had all the resources and all the means to be motivated, and to do great big things. If they really need the help to spend and do whatever, would they really count as the rich?

The people who need the help are people in the lower income brackets, the people who struggle, the people who really can’t do much to get out of the negative situation they’re in. If you just chip a few of these people out of the financial conditions that they are stuck in, they will be more productive than if you left them to their own devices.

3)There’s reason for the resentment, historical and present. Time and time again, we must foot the bill, and live with the consequences of what somebody more powerful than us does. Most of us do not try to do the impossible in completely levelling the playing field, but we are interested in having those set above us by chance and finance humbled a little bit with obligations to right and do well by the rest of us. We just want to balance the books a little. Call it competition.

4)Speaking of which…
The polarization is a legacy of what your political forebears did. How many times have called somebody a liberal, and not as a pure description? How many times have you talked about reverse discrimination, in a land where racial diversity and gender equity are still problematic among the leadership of our corporations. How often have people like you accused people like me of being unpatriotic?

To some extent, bickering is a natural part of our political process. Unity is not, at least not in any compulsory fashion. Democracies are like that by nature. There’s always going to be disputes, open questions, disagreement, and all the sins of discourse that come along with them.

Bush and his people, unfortunately, have forgotten this. They want a kind of unity, a kind of consensus they’ll never be able to get, and preserve this nation as one of freedom. They are so convinced of the rightness of their agenda that they forget their own fallibility. Democrats broke away from support of the president when all that became clear, when it became clear that what Bush wanted was rubbers stamps and cheering section, not principled opposition.

The truth is, There are real reasons why people aren’t behind Bush 100%. Unfortunately, Bush and his people won’t accept them. They would rather have those who disagree as enemies, than compromise their vision of the world. And that is the real pity, and that’s why I and so many like me, all criticize Bush so much.

Let’s see.

1) You still have NOT answered my question. You CLAIM that being poor means earning below a specific level of income. But HOW MUCH? $100000? $1000000? And WHAT type of lifestyle is one to lead that should be considered OK? Is it YOU? Perhaps some sociology homework should be done before we argue about this point because this is simply going to get nowhere.

2)If I was unclear about my point, I apologise beforehand and I try to make myself clearer. I never said we shouldn’t tax the rich more than we tax the poor. But I’m saying that the point that the infrastructure benefits the rich more than they benefit the poor is of no consequence. The infrastructure is there to as capital to aid economic development, and naturally, those who already have the resources to work with, or the rich, will be able to kick it off first. I was making a quibble about the point that the rich benefits more from the system than the poor, NOT because I don’t agree to taxing them more heavily.

3) No one can deny there is some level of resentment, though it runs much deeper in some people than in others. I believe in levelling the playing field. In fact, I never put forth the point that the rich shouldn’t be taxed more heavily. My point is that IN ADDITION to taxing, more has to be done. We can’t just try to level the playing field without separating the people who are ALREADY engaged in the deadlock. Both have to be done concurrently. My point was never answered here. This is a problem more with mindsets, not so much with the taxation system.

4) I never made a personal attack on anyone. Why, even the word “liberal” was never mentioned and your words suggest that I am a conservative. And you claimed I call you unpatriotic. I understand that this is election year and feelings run high, but flaming just isn’t the way. It never was. For all the past elections, we’ve all been voting for one person simply because we hated the other side. This is self-destructive. Why do you think I choose to be an independent? Go figure.

A final note, I’m glad you spent time writing this so that I could clarify. If at least a few people can reach a consensus through this forum, at least it shows that consensus on the micro level may still be attainable.

On a personal note, I don’t remember any past president being as divisive a personality as Bush is. He may have good intentions, or he may just be another politician, we never know for sure. The waves of anti-Bush fevor may well be whipped up by Bush himself with all his controversial decisions. I would imagine an ideal situation in which he steps down on his own accord to preserve the unity of the nation and his detractors stop flaming and move on, but this is just dreaming. Of course

1)No, I would say it’s somewhere around 20,000 dollars a year, though I’m not certain what the exact standards are. And no, I’m not even going to get into lifestyle, because then it becomes an unfairly presumptive question. If you were making chump change, working hard, and somebody tells you that you lack a work ethic, isn’t that offensive?

2)It’s more complex than that. I mean, the rich have more money to risk, but often, the people buying the products are in middle or lower income brackets. This is where lifestyle comes into play. If keeping a stable lifestyle requires one to spend more money, and one is not paid more to make up for it, you have a situation where people are having to struggle to maintain themselves, and who therefore will not be as keen to buy new products. The consumer economy depends on people’s ability to spend outside of necessities. If only the rich can do this dependably, the market and the benefits are limited. Economic development must take place on a consumer level as well as on the producer’s, or else business will not work as well as it needs to.

3)You turn on the news, you hear about other people getting breaks because they’re pillars of the community, because they can afford better lawyers, better lobbyists. Then you look at your life and see things getting tougher, your pay staying stagnant while the market kicks up executive salaries much faster. What reason can these people be given for not being resentful?

4)The text of your comment sounded very much like that of a conservative, so I responded accordingly to your talk of divisiveness by point out the habitually divisive practices of the Republican party. I apologize for the mistake. But I wanted to make clear that unity without dignity is no unity at all. There was no dignity in being required, in the name of unity, to give up our cherished beliefs. There was no dignity in coming under increasing partisan attack for not holding with the far right line about various issues. There is no dignity in sitting around and letting people question your loyalty to the nation as a whole, just because you question what the leadership and majority party asserts.’

Of course 9/11 vindicated a more defense oriented posture towards the world, and seemed to vindicate a less internationalist approach to the world. Patriotism came back into vogue. All these played into Republican hands. Naturally it was something of a boost of the conservatives. But they didn’t have to run that into the ground.

The conservatives could have been magnanimous, could have let the liberals satisfy their constituents concerns as well as their own. Instead, they made it clear that all they wanted from Democrats was support for their policies. Others hammered home the same old cold war charges of disloyalty and base morality.

Liberal and Democrats may be willing to accept some of the errors in thinking that lead to 9/11 on our shoulders, but we hardly believe that we are lacking in patriotism, lacking in morals, much less lacking in reasons to continue to believe most things as we believed them before.

If nothing else created resentment for Bush, it’s that kind of smug disregard for the intelligence and the dignity of the opposition, and their positions. It’s that sense of him saying I don’t have to deign to explain myself to the likes of you. If you’re of the right thinking portion of the population, you don’t need to be convinced. The loyal, true Americans will agree with me. If one has any kind of heart at all, and one is a liberal, how can one stand to just sit there and take it?

Hmm. Give and take, although I can’t say I fully agree with you still, at least I think I’ll agree with some of the things you say, wholeheartedly, now that it seems after clarification, the issues of contention have cooled down to a more manageable level. I don’t really want to get too deep into what both the alleged conservatives and liberals are really trying to do.

But what I lament is this. Bush operates with a clear disregard of his opponents, acting as if he is always right and justified as the leader. It’s fine being swift and decisive, but he hasn’t taken the effort to account his actions as leader to the nation. I personally find that patriarchial style distasteful. No self-respecting leader who dares to claim he is even remotely a good one should indulge in this practice.

However, I want to make my point clear here. No matter how bad he is, we need to have a credible opposition that shows that it has viable plans for moving forward. Flaming Bush time and again simply won’t cut it. I hope to see the opposition, Democrats or otherwise, present their plans for development, at least the general ideas, not just the traditional stereotypes of the parties involved. It’s no use saying “We’ll spend less”, “We’ll get ourselves out of Iraq” and other platitudes. History has shown these to be nothing but vote-pullers.

Between a bad president and a flamer, I don’t know which is the lesser of the two evils. People are dying in Iraq, and there are numerous other problems to solve, and yet the major parties are bickering about who has a decent war record, love affairs, and all that. It’s not only stupid, but sick. As if we hadn’t had enough of the Starr report. The antics of BOTH Democrats and Republicans just make disillusioned voters even more confused, the country even more divided.

misha: “As a result, most of the rich are not rich at the expense of anyone (of course there are some counterexamples, like corporate crooks and thieves)”
Who might some of these examples be? Ken Lay, might you put him as one of your examples? Didn’t I read something about his involvement with this administration? Haliburton? Didn’t they just admit to some sort of crime involving millions of dollars in kickbacks? What exactly did Haliburton have to do with this administration, agian?
As for the 2 Americas Misha, have you been to a nice suburban neighborhood, where the “rich” people live? Have you been to the school there? Have you been to an inner-city getto? How about there public school? It is absolutely ridiculous to say that there aren’t huge desparities in American lives today, and it is almost all based on your income, and the average income of your neighbors.

Martin: Lay is EXACTLY who I was talking about actually. As for your baseless attempts to somehow blame Bush for Enron and Haliburton, well you can continue to believe your conspiracy theories. Enron gave as much money to the dems as republicans in the last election… but again, that has NOTHING to do with the point I was making which you purposely missed, I think. I did not say there are no difference in income, that would be ridiculous. Although the income gap for non-immigrants is actually shrinking (which means that of the people here today, in the next generation, their wealth will be closer together)- the reason we have an increasing income gap is becauase we let in more immigrants than the rest of the world combined. I think thats a good thing- and this is one area where Europe really needs to look themselves in the mirror- but with our generious immigration policy comes the cost of an increasing income gap, as most immigrants start at the bottom (disclaimer: my family and I came here in 1988 with three suitcases). But back on point- what I was saying is that the average poor person does not become poor BECAUSE the average rich person becomes rich (again, with the Lay exception). Most rich people become rich by selling products, services ect, working jobs. If Bill Gates was never born, there would be more poverty in America, not less. So it makes no sense to have a tax system that in effect holds him responsible for other people’s poverty. So please dont respond to arguments I didnt make- my point was that it makes no sense to blame the rich for the plight of the poor, because poverty is not a result of income gaps. See my point about midevil conception of property above for a more full explanation where your analysis misses what I was saying.

Martin, Misha and I grew up together it two towns, orinigally though we didn’t know each other in an urban setting, and then later as friends in a rich suburban settings. Both our families were very upwardly socially mobile and both have earned thier place in the rich community with the great school. Neither family deserves to be punished for the sucess in any manifestation.
-Regarding the two americas, there was no tracks for our familes to cross and the options of levels of home ownership and subequent school districts were many, and with the best came sacrifice for years.
-Also if the rich get more of the governments cocerns, if this is so, is it not valid or fair as they pay the larger portion of taxes. If you give to a company 100 fold more than someone else, do you not expect at least a larger concern and portion of the product?
Misha- though i love this blog, some of the time might be wasted as some of these people argue not in fact and are already decided that they are entitled to the moneys of the sucessful and wealthy. If they do not conceed many of your logically and mathematically based points at this point then any continuence may be without purpose and falling on deaf or shut ears.

misha,
I don’t ever mean to sound as if my mind is already made up on issue’s It’s a style of argument that tends to lead me when I write. Tone is not easy for me to show with only words.
I digress, anyways, the comment that got me going was this:
“I would like to ask Edwards and those who echo this message this question: Which of these “Two Americas” does the average American today live in?
I say who cares about the average American? That is not what our government should really be worrying about. I beleave that our government should be looking out for the low man on the tottom pole. You say you came to America with only 3 suitcases, well didn’t america do it’s job by helping you to live? I don’t know how or what your exact circumstanses are but I have travled and lived all over the U.S.A. I have seen two easily identifiable Americas, you seemed to put it econimic terms which is why I responded as I did. But people that live in the upper class have so many choices, that the lower class doesn’t have. that is never going to change. So part of the deal in our world is that the richer you are the more the government takes.
A dollar to some one making $6 an hour means a whole lot more than it means to someone making $250,000 a year. So we take half of $250,000 that still leaves the rich guy with $125,000 we take 1/3 of $18,000 that only leaves the poor guy with $12,000 that sucks for the poor guy while that seems unfair to the rich guy.
That is what the job of the government should be doing, telling the rich guy to get over it, “you are still rich!”
Sorry about any harsh tones.
peace,
martin

P.S. Nate, why should PUBLIC schools be better anywhere than they are anywhere else? Did the rich kid earn his privalage? I am not saying that poor kids should have better schools than rich kids, I think that schools, wich are government funded, should be as close to equal as possible.

Martin. I’ve enjoyed reading the arguments you guys are having on this blog, but your last comment really puzzles me. Schools are “better” based upon the level of commitment by the teachers, parents, students, and community that they serve. This occurs in inter-cities, suburbs, rural areas, and so on. You can’t buy good schools just as you can’t buy good grades for you children (well some people try!). Striving for national equality in a free, non-socialist society is a goal that can not, and should not, be obtained.

Continue having fun with the discussion.

Martin,(is your name really martin too?)

Yes schools quality is based largely on the “level of commitment by the teachers, parents, students, and community that they serve.” Also Funding has a little to do with it, I think. The more money a school has the more choices that school has. And school funding is sometimes, not always, but sometimes based upon the income of the students’ Families. So I rephrase my question, Does a rich kid deserve a better-funded school than a poor one?
martin

Misha, that may not be the case. Had Bill not been here to create his Operating systems monopoly, things might have turned out better. Gates created neither of the operating systems ideas he’s famous for. He bought DOS off of somebody else, and ripped off the desktop design of Windows off of the Macintosh.

While it is true that the cream of the crop does rise to the top, it’s also true of rotting rats and scum. If you notice, when all the financial chaos went down in Enron, everybody and their dog were making restatements of their figures.

In other words, they were cleaning up because they were doing the same things, and they didn’t want people going after them too. Given time enough, it’s my belief they’ll get back to doing these things again. The power of those who produce, and the temptation to gain money for nothing will bring them back to it.

That is, unless they are barred from those practices. They’ll whine that it’s bad for the market, but hasn’t our economy taken enough hits on account of dishonesty and conflicts of interest?

I’ve lived here long enough to feel the effects of the economic scandals not once, but over and over, and to see its effect on my family. The Junk-Bond meltdowns, the S+L crisis, the DotCom debacle of the late 90’s and the general wave of discoveries of industry-wide financial malfeasance that has rocked our country since Enron. So I take my dim view of deregulation not from some abstract academic standpoint, but rather a lifelong familiarity with the sorry results of deregulation on our economy. I have seen wealth disappear time and time again into abysses hollowed out by the corruption the deregulation encourages.

It is natural as self-made individual to not fault the competitive drive of others, to view restraints on that competition as barriers that must be removed. I don’t fault you for that attitude. But my experience of the market has been different.

Far different. My family has been at the mercy of it, even in the face of our most sincerest ambitions to overcome it. So pardon me if I don’t trust the market, if I expect better behavior and better regulation of the participants of the market. I really don’t care to let the market decide, because it seems to me to have the personality of a mentally disturbed juvenile delinquent. I would treat it just so- firmly established rules, an environment of discipline, honesty and responsibility, and a development of a fuller perspective of the world that doesn’t treat economics and finance as a law to themselves, but as a part of a more varied and multifaceted examination of human experience.

I would not destroy it with needless regulation, but I would rather have one law too many than one law too few. I would not destroy the ambitions of the rich and powerful, but I would prefer that they enrich others while they enrich themselves, and not merely take for granted the sources of their wealth and power.

This country makes the bargain that unequal power and wealth will be allowed to exist so long as that power and wealth is subject to complementary levels of regulation and restriction by the law. The Rich are taxed at the level they are, because the rich can stand to share a greater part of the burden, and the release of that burden from the lower classes allow them to increase the demand for goods that otherwise would be beyond their means, which ultimately flows back up to the top.

This a country whose great power is possible because of the existence of a large, affluent middle class. It’s only because of this large reserve of common wealth that America has the influence on economy and lifestyle that it does.

To focus on the rich is to miss the real fuel of our economy, the real backbone of our cultural mainstream. The policies of this nation should be geared to the preservation and fortunes of the middle class and potential middle class Americans.

Stephen- we have laid out our arguments pretty clearly here. and I know where you are coming from. I just want to draw one distinction for you, that i think a lot of people miss in my arguments. There are two levels of arguments I am putting forth- one which you directly attacked and is based upon contingent impericial evidence, and one which you left untouched, and in fact, I do not believe can be assaulted on principle.

(1) the consequentialist defense of the free market- this is what you were really talking about in your response, and depending where you come down on the emperical evidence, you can go either way. basically your contention is that deregulation causes more problems, in terms of overall welfare, than it brings in. I disagree with that assesment, and think the isolated couple of examples you cite, while admittedly tragic and sickening, are but blips compared to the waste in economic gains the government squanderes with its regulation. You say you would rather have one law too many than one law too few-, but the problem is that for every “good” regulation of the market, which is rather rare, there are dozens and dozens of schemes that the government comes up with that do nothing to help the government and just play to the populous- the bottom line is the government has proven time and time again it is not adept at regulating the economy. Take the new deal- almost every economists agrees that the techniques used in the new deal were ineffective and did nothing to help. they seemed like they would work- but as often happends when government’s guns get involved in people’s voluntary interactions, the result is less efficiently, not more. I beleive we will see most of today’s regulation in the same light many years from now. Of course you disagree with me, and I doubt we will convince each other on this- it is all based on which economists and which numbers you believe.

(2) The second level of argument that I am putting foward is the principled defense of the free market- this is the argument that I really care about, I have to admit. I dont “care” about rich people, i dont feel bad for them if their money is taken away, viserally- but the bottom line is that it is wrong to take from more and more from someone just because they are rich. My point about Bill Gates was that he did nothing wrong in creating his product and marketing it the way he did. He didnt steal from anyone (if he actually stole, then i would withdraw my point about him and simply point to someone else)- he didnt use force against anyone- he just used his mental powers to market a product that lots of people wanted. I dont believe the majority of the people has the right to regulate and, in effect, punish someone when they have done nothing wrong and have not hurt anyone else. In a couple of days i will publish an article on this page in which I compared social security to the “war on drugs”, and I will explain that point in more detail then… stay tuned :)

1)I’m not much of an “ends justify the means” sort of fellow. No, I think we should counter habitual dishonesty, pervasive conflicts of interest and obvious systemic and institutional problems with appropriate and complementary legislation, and err on the side of caution.

I would say you’re more consequentialist than I am. You’re willing to destroy the rare good regulation for the sake of all the putative bad ones. From my point of view, you’re also advocating, for the end of growing the economy the means of looking the other way as the problems I mentioned above take their toll.

If I were to venture a bottom line, it’s that corporations are typically worse at regulating themselves than government is. Say what you want, but corporations do pay attention to laws, even if they only do so to get out from under them. Our problem is that people like yourself have continually squeezed out the necessary funding and manpower to fully implement regulations that are on the book.

If I were you, and I wanted to maintain the attitude against bad regulations, I would not take such a generalist approach if I actually wanted anything done with my name associated. If you’ve noticed, you don’t hear much about de-regulation, you hear about smart regulation, because deregulation has rightfully become associated with being overly friendly with business interests.

Instead of taking a general approach, I’d start attacking specific laws, and specific sections of laws. It’d start nailing individual policy decisions instead of taking the good laws with the bad.

2)Truth is, we’re taking less and less. That’s the whole point of the argument. We’re making it easier on the people who really don’t need it any easier. This isn’t thievery. This is a progressive tax system, meant to hand more of the burden to those who can handle more of the burden. The Democrats have no more intention of crushing the rich than the Republicans do. But the Republicans seem to want to be more friendly to this class than to any other.

Let me tell you, I only opposed the tax cut at first because I felt it was irresponsible to gamble future surpluses on the continued success of the markets. That obviously didn’t happen, so my initial concern was correct.

It wasn’t until I got to the tax brackets that I really got all class-warfare on this. A common misconception about tax brackets is that all your income is taxed at the highest bracket you fall into.

In fact, you are only taxed at that bracket’s rate for the money that falls within that bracket. That’s important to understand, if you are to understand Democrat discontent about the taxes.

The lowest income bracket was the only bracket in middle class reach that was cut. Once one hits the maximum range, not terribly high, of the bracket in question, that’s your tax cut if you’re middle class. The amount does not scale up with income until one hits the higher income ranges, where the tax cuts suddenly explode in values from a few hundred dollars to thousands, tens of thousands, and more.

What’s the difference? Well, if I hand you six hundred dollars, and sixty thousand, which one buys more, all other things being equal? We’re handing much more economic power, to fewer people, for no better reason, it seems, than they’re wealthy.

As far as the market is concerned, Bill Gates has done his harm, using his monopoly position to intimidate, cut out, and assimilate the businesses of most of the competition. It does harm people, really. It contributes to higher prices, it pre-empts any remedial effects of competition on the product quality, and allows one person more power over a culture than anybody has a right to.

People don’t merely want operating systems, they want the best operating system their money could possibly buy. Because of Gates’ monopolization of the OS market, people don’t have the choice of cheaper, faster, more stable, higher tech operating systems, choice that would have forced more innovation to take place. Instead, we have a company that can claim to be the best, because few people every encounter anybody else. We missed the chance for those improvements because Bill Gates wanted it all.

Netscape now is the terrible competitor that it is because Internet Explorer had monopoly platform with which to unseat Netscape. There are undoubtedly a number of companies at a loss to market CD players, games, utilities, and other items to the public because the only OS game in town has decided to pre-emptively plop their down in their monopoly OS.

As for finding another hero to tout, undoubtedly chance is in your favor. You probably will find a nice guy to present to all of us. But it’s one thing to find an individual, it’s another entirely to look at the corporate culture and find something to be comfortable with. If more people compete like Bill Gates than this saint of the financial world you find, then we’ve got a problem, one that perhaps needs regulatory solution.

As for majority rules? Well, there’s always going to be tension between majority and minority interests. But I’d be careful about making broad sweeping statements about what hurts nobody, because not everybody agrees on what does and doesn’t hurt people. They’d also debate you on the value of permitting self-destructive behavior, since that can be a prelude to behavior destructive of others.

What about the politics of breaking into your gated communities and killing you in your sleep? See here’s the dynamic, you have stuff, we don’t, we have all the guns. And being quite prison-hardened and inside learning all sorts of nice things from others, we can cut the right wires that turn off your alarms. Oh did I mention we have all the guns. This year alone more of us killers and thugs and violators of little white girls and boys are getting out of prison due to crowding and prison overpopulation. Why is this white people? Because your stupid president cut your taxes at the top then did it again. Then started a war with no exit strategy. Mo money, mo money soon makes no money! Now you are going to put him in again and more and more of us are going to get out. States are going broke.

Let me see if I can explain this effectively, we are going to wipe you out. Also in prison we get computer training and take jobs telemarketing, now we know more than one way to get at dat money. Buy all the rap albums you like, it won’t save you. When we come to the door to knock you out and take your @#$% and then take you out on a little trip to the atm you will understand why we took a long lonely stretch of woods to bring you back home.

So you ask, what do rich people get in return for the dollars you give to the government. Aw poopie, it does’nt matter now we’re out, biaaaach. And there are going to be more of us, and more of us, and more of us! @#$% If I could vote hell I’d vote republican too!!! You can’t contain us and we can find where you live just by driving around at night. It’s hard to profile at night and maybe shoot a guard or two at your gated community.

Addressing class war in a round about way from a middle class tech worker perspective.

Outsourcing: Ask any IT guy/gal/person about outsourcing, H1B visa and the like. It means cheap foreigners get our high tech jobs. Previously we had to import the talent, now we export the whole department to Bangalore India. A very short term profit oriented motive for a company that will not adjust their cost of product to reflect such cost savings. Where does the cash go? Ask the millionaire CEO abpout his latest cost savings bonus (6 figures no doubt).

Outsourcing means high paying jobs going over seas for ever, leaving a local economy with no need for technology workers. No one pursues the degrees and our technology base degenerates.

My suggestion to tech workers is to get a job with a defense contractor or work directly for the government. This work is too sensitive for the use of foreign tech workers. Thank God for national Security.

Foreign Guest Workers: AKA illegal Mexican immigrant (the majority statistically), here to do the jobs that American don’t want. Like the programmer that lost his job to a Bangladeshi (costs only $10 a day and a bowl of rice) and is now working at McDonalds? Or the phone support worker, whose call center moved en masse to Pakistan, now working for a temp agency as a laborer?

What’s left? The best paying jobs are shipped overseas for fat cat profits; the leftover jobs are given away to illegals to garner ethnic votes. What’s left?

Who is out supporting and defending the middle class, the working class? The Democrats that want to tax us out of existence for the benefit of the poor huddled masses? Sounds kind of Marxist. The Republicans that legislate corporate benefits that strips us our chances of to get ahead or even work? Sounds kind of egalitarian.

So here is the warning to everyone: Ship my tech job overseas and come see me working at Pizza Hut. I won’t need a tax cut as I will be making minimum wage (bite me Republican Party). I won’t be making as much money, as I will only be working part time. But I will be making just enough to make me ineligible for Federal assistance. I won’t be buying a bunch of consumer crap (bite me Corporations). I will be taking whatever CASH work I can get (bite me illegal guest workers). I won’t be paying many taxes (bite me big Government, bite me Democratic Party and their huddled masses).

As for the two big parties in town - you don’t represent my middle class interests. The only class war in town is the war to see who will get my middle class dollar. Enjoy it while you can. Because the pograms of both parties are clearly aimed at an ethnic cleansing of the middle class.

Bill

- now doing tech work for a major defense contractor and a little tech work on the side.

Dear Simon,

You are clearly delusional if you think only you have guns. Not all of us are pinko gun control freaks. Someone had told me once that as much as forty percent of the world’s hundreds of millions of small arms were in the hands of American civilians. Knowing how many I have, I think that is a conservative estimate.

We don’t all live in gated communities with alarms, maybe a cur dog or two. And if push comes to shove, we won’t wait on you to come to us. Most of us can hunt varmints as well human trash.

Computer training? Telemarketing? Ain’t ye readin’ any of the crap posted here?? Those jobs are goin’ overseas boy! Folks are losing jobs. Means less taxes for welfare freaks like you.

Y-O-U M-I-G-H-T H-A-V-E T-O W-O-R-K!! Never mind, the guest workers will come to Del Norte to take any job you can do – for cheaper and better.

As for the white girl/boy comment – be careful. Racism is a crime in this country unless you’re NOT WHITE.

So – summary. I’m not rich, I have a gun, will defend self and family, have a dog that bites, will hunt you down if you break the law, have a job, I work, I’m white, I’m not a racist (I will defend myself and kill perpetrators regardless of race creed or national origin).

Love Bubba

The really scary thing….even for you free thinking independents is that the press is really only presenting one view of America. The view that is being presented might just as well come from Jacques…Le Snake Chirac. I think that the French have been better allies than the American News Media. The Media is controlled by liberal elites…you would have to be brain dead not to see this. Bush has done an excellent job as President…and the terrorists are just praying that he will be defeated.