State of the Union

[Free Press Editor Joe Spear]

I'd be interested to hear thoughts on Obama's state of the union and the Republican response from Gov. Jindal. Many thought it was a good speech, delivered well. Several commentators criticized the lack of substance, and still no real plan to fix the banking system...Thoughts?

[Dan Conner]

I'd be interested to hear thoughts on Obama's state of the union and the Republican response from Gov. Jindahl. Many thought it was a good speech, delivered well. Several commentators criticized the lack of substance, and still no real plan to fix the banking system...Thoughts?

I thought the President's address to Congress was awesome! He think he promises to lead us to new heights. Also, he promises to hold overcompensated, underworked, and overentertained executives accountable. I think he embarks on a very ambitious effort to shrink the deficit, while improving education, health care, and the economy. I believe him. He's been President for only 5 weeks and he has already done much. I think he is going to inspire our nation to achieve far more than we have for many many years. He's going to accommplish these things without rraising taxes on 95% of our population...GREAT!

He proposes to remedy much of our energy problem by getting us off oil. So far, I think we are very lucky to have such a visionary President in these tough times.

As far as fixes for the banking system...I think you missed much of his speech. He said there would probably be more money requests from Congress, that he is going to enforce his requirements that banks increase borrowing, and that he is going to severely deal with bank executive financial abuses. He said he has helped Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. He now wants banks to work for the people. He said all the assistance given to banks is NOT about helping banks, it's about helping people. This President is going to rightfully expect us all to sacrifice more for our nation - right on. Hopefully, it will spell the end of the me-me era and bring on the us-us era. For too many years, our country has stood for profiteering for many individuals at the expense of our nation.

I think a point that was not discussed in his speech, which I know he is working on, is to find ways to tax the illegal money held in secret foreign bank accounts (Switzerland, Bahama's, Lichtenstein, etc.). There is a possiblity the Government will get the account information for 52,000 Americans with these illegal accounts at UBS. There is tremendous taxes unrealized there. For too long, these people have skated at everyone else's expense.

[Bob Jentges]

I'd be interested to hear thoughts on Obama's state of the union and the Republican response from Gov. Jindahl. Many thought it was a good speech, delivered well. Several commentators criticized the lack of substance, and still no real plan to fix the banking system...Thoughts?

I thought President Obama's delivery style was wonderful, but the content frightning. I thought Governor Jindal's delivery style was dissappointing, but the content inspiring.

[Dan Conner]

I thought President Obama's delivery style was wonderful, but the content frightning. I thought Governor Jindal's delivery style was dissappointing, but the content inspiring.

Well, hold on to your seat, you are going to be "frightened" a lot more before this is over. I feel convinced President Obama is going to leave a far better country behind, after he leaves, than the country he inherited. There were too many years of greed, corruption, and selfishness in the times before. Hopefully, the times before frightened you?

[Bob Jentges]

Well, hold on to your seat, you are going to be "frightened" a lot more before this is over. I feel convinced President Obama is going to leave a far better country behind, after he leaves, than the country he inherited. There were too many years of greed, corruption, and selfishness in the times before. Hopefully, that frightened you?

Maybe concerned would have been a better choice of words for me. Having said that, an article in todays Yahoo! Finance read: "Stocks drop as Obama's speech and housing data weigh". A headline in todays POLITICO read: "Byrd: Obama in power grab".

I do not need to tell you, but Robert C. Byrd (D WVA) is the longest Serving Democratic Senator and certainly no right wing zealot. He is however a well respected authority on the U.S. Constitution.

That reminds me of a quote by deceased American historian Charles A. Beard:

"You need only reflect that one of the best ways to generate a reputation
as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating the very phrases
which our founding fathers used in the struggle for independence".

I think ones viewpoint depends on whether they have more faith in the individual, as our founding fathers apparrently did, or the government.

[Dan Conner]

Maybe concerned would have been a better choice of words for me. Having said that, an article in todays Yahoo! Finance read: "Stocks drop as Obama's speech and housing data weigh". A headline in todays POLITICO read: "Byrd: Obama in power grab".

I do not need to tell you, but Robert C. Byrd (D WVA) is the longest Serving Democratic Senator and certainly no right wing zealot. He is however a well respected authority on the U.S. Constitution.

That reminds me of a quote by deceased American historian Charles A. Beard:

"You need only reflect that one of the best ways to generate a reputation
as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating the very phrases
which our founding fathers used in the struggle for independence".

I think ones viewpoint depends on whether they have more faith in the individual, as our founding fathers apparrently did, or the government.

I'm having a hard time understanding your hyperbole here, but you are concerned about Obama's "power grab?" I think you are so far off base you're going to need my GPS to find your way back. Were you concerned about President Bush's power grab when he lied, covered-up the truth, and fabricated evidence to go to war in Iraq? Were you concerned when he assigned a brigade of active military troops to control civil unrest in our country in violation of Posse-Comitatas? Were you concerned when he renditioned innocent US citizens to foreign countries to be tortured? Were you concerned when he "lost" over 12 million emails that might have shed some light on White House motives for various actions? Were you concerned about when he had the NSA listen to all telephone conversations happening in the US? Were you concerned about why he discouraged alternative energy uses to get away from oil? Were you concerned about when he invited only oil company executives to a secret meeting to write our country'
s energy policy? Were you concerned about why his administration revealed a CIA clandestine operative's name to the press to punish her for something her husband did? Were you concerned about a botched aid effort in New Orleans that might have cost a thousand lives? Were you concerned about Bush's disconnect when he said "good job Brownie?" Were you concerned when "W's" mother said there were only poor people in New Orleans anyway? Were you concerned when his administration had an Alabama former governor prosecuted and convicted on a lie by withholding evidence? Were you concerned about him when he hired people in his administration based on a religious test? Were you concerned when he opened famous pristine Federal lands to oil drilling? Were you concerned about his uncaring feeling about endangered species? Were you concerned about his record setting deficits, higher than all prior Presidents put together? Were you concerned about his increasing spending, but reducing taxes? Were you concerned about his no-bid secret contracts? Were you concerned about him losing over $9,000,000,000 in Iraq and not being able to find it? Were you concerned about him allowing war profiteering in Iraq? Were you concerned about his failure to adequately finance treament of veterans injured in the Iraq/Afghanistan War? Were you concerend about his failure to procured all the equipment necessary for soldiers to protect themselves? Were you concerned about his failure to prevent, and in many ways caused, the greatest banking collapse our country has ever had? Plus, many, amany other things that have escaped me. Then, I hear Republicans voice their complaints about Obama's stimulus package because they said they didn't have the time to read it over? Well, they quickly forget the $700,000,000 Bush rammed through Congress with even less time to consider. How about the lack of time for Congress to consider the Iraq War? These are all hypocritical statements. Historians have already said President Bush made the largest power grab by a US President in our history, and now you're worrying about Obama? Sorry, but I'm dismissing your concern as either bigotry, political bias, or fear of change. Obama long promised change, and that's what we're going to get. The American people decided that. You know, continuing to do the wrong thing won't make it right later. We need change!

If you aren't concerned about Bush's power grab, then you'll be in a state of bliss with Obama. He has already opened a website for you to track spending on the stimulus: www.recovery.gov I suggest you look at it periodically, but don't give me that stuff about "fearing" or being concerned about a "power grab." You favorite President, Bush, already grabbed most of it.

[Fred Slocum]

I thought President Obama's address to Congress, not technically a "state of the union" address, was masterful. Obama was alternately reassuring, encouraging (we aren't quitters; we will rebuild), showed appropriate outrage at banking CEO salaries and perks, and stressed themes of both individual responsibility (encouraging those thinking about dropping out of high school not to, not just for themselves, but for the nation) and social responsibility in the financial sector, energy independence, and health care. He demonstrated ambitious short-term plans to reform the financial sector and credit markets, and in his signature policy areas of energy, health care and education. And I never cease to be amazed at Obama's impressive delivery - poised and stylish. And never mind hired speechwriters; this president writes his OWN speeches!

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal's Republican response address was wooden, amateurish and roundly panned across the political spectrum, even on Fox News, and by conservative columnist David Brooks. On substance, Bob Jentges may find it comforting, but Jindal offered virtually nothing more than recycled right-wing talking points: less big government, more deregulation, and always and forever, tax cuts, tax cuts and more tax cuts, no matter what the economic circumstances. Jindal's ideology is vintage Tom DeLay, Grover Norquist, George Bush and the right-wingers who dominate the Republican caucuses in both House and Senate. Jindal's negative, anti-government message is ripped straight out of Ronald Reagan's 1980-1981 playbook: "government is the problem, not the solution." Unfortunately, nobody apparently told Jindal this isn't 1981 anymore (you would think Jindal, a Rhodes Scholar, would realize this himself), and today's economic circumstances are very different. If the Republican Party is offering anything more than robotic opposition to Obama's agenda, I'd like to see it. Perhaps a positive agenda, besides more deregulation, and tax cuts, tax cuts and more tax cuts (for the rich and corporations, first and foremost)?

To Dan Conner: Bravo! Bush was hardly a small-government president, and his abuses of power have been nothing short of outrageous - politicizing the Justice Department, politically interfering with career civil servants' reports in areas like energy and the environment, and using "signing statements" to effectively proclaim he'll abide by the law if he feels like it, to name a few.

[Bob Jentges]

Fred, regarding your early morning response to my post I appreciate that you did not read things into my post that I did not say, was not personal, condescending or insulting. We may disagree philosophically but when we disagree I hope we can continue to disagree without being disagreeable.

[Dan Conner]

Fred, regarding your early morning response to my post I appreciate that you did not read things into my post that I did not say, was not personal, condescending or insulting. We may disagree philosophically but when we disagree I hope we can continue to disagree without being disagreeable.

There is an interesting column below at CNBC about another possible 52,000 American who have not been paying taxes on possible illegal Swiss bank accounts. Andcapitalism produces honesty and integrity?

http://www.cnbc.com/id/29405042/

[Dan Conner]

I thought President Obama's address to Congress, not technically a "state of the union" address, was masterful. Obama was alternately reassuring, encouraging (we aren't quitters; we will rebuild), showed appropriate outrage at banking CEO salaries and perks, and stressed themes of both individual responsibility (encouraging those thinking about dropping out of high school not to, not just for themselves, but for the nation) and social responsibility in the financial sector, energy independence, and health care. He demonstrated ambitious short-term plans to reform the financial sector and credit markets, and in his signature policy areas of energy, health care and education. And I never cease to be amazed at Obama's impressive delivery - poised and stylish. And never mind hired speechwriters; this president writes his OWN speeches!

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal's Republican response address was wooden, amateurish and roundly panned across the political spectrum, even on Fox News, and by conservative columnist David Brooks. On substance, Bob Jentges may find it comforting, but Jindal offered virtually nothing more than recycled right-wing talking points: less big government, more deregulation, and always and forever, tax cuts, tax cuts and more tax cuts, no matter what the economic circumstances. Jindal's ideology is vintage Tom DeLay, Grover Norquist, George Bush and the right-wingers who dominate the Republican caucuses in both House and Senate. Jindal's negative, anti-government message is ripped straight out of Ronald Reagan's 1980-1981 playbook: "government is the problem, not the solution." Unfortunately, nobody apparently told Jindal this isn't 1981 anymore (you would think Jindal, a Rhodes Scholar, would realize this himself), and today's economic circumstances are very different. If the Republican Party is offering anything more than robotic opposition to Obama's agenda, I'd like to see it. Perhaps a positive agenda, besides more deregulation, and tax cuts, tax cuts and more tax cuts (for the rich and corporations, first and foremost)?

To Dan Conner: Bravo! Bush was hardly a small-government president, and his abuses of power have been nothing short of outrageous - politicizing the Justice Department, politically interfering with career civil servants' reports in areas like energy and the environment, and using "signing statements" to effectively proclaim he'll abide by the law if he feels like it, to name a few.

Excellent reply Fred. Thanks

[Bob Jentges]

I'm having a hard time understanding your hyperbole here, but you are concerned about Obama's "power grab?" I think you are so far off base you're going to need my GPS to find your way back. Were you concerned about President Bush's power grab when he lied, covered-up the truth, and fabricated evidence to go to war in Iraq? Were you concerned when he assigned a brigade of active military troops to control civil unrest in our country in violation of Posse-Comitatas? Were you concerned when he renditioned innocent US citizens to foreign countries to be tortured? Were you concerned when he "lost" over 12 million emails that might have shed some light on White House motives for various actions? Were you concerned about when he had the NSA listen to all telephone conversations happening in the US? Were you concerned about why he discouraged alternative energy uses to get away from oil? Were you concerned about when he invited only oil company executives to a secret meeting to write our country'
s energy policy? Were you concerned about why his administration revealed a CIA clandestine operative's name to the press to punish her for something her husband did? Were you concerned about a botched aid effort in New Orleans that might have cost a thousand lives? Were you concerned about Bush's disconnect when he said "good job Brownie?" Were you concerned when "W's" mother said there were only poor people in New Orleans anyway? Were you concerned when his administration had an Alabama former governor prosecuted and convicted on a lie by withholding evidence? Were you concerned about him when he hired people in his administration based on a religious test? Were you concerned when he opened famous pristine Federal lands to oil drilling? Were you concerned about his uncaring feeling about endangered species? Were you concerned about his record setting deficits, higher than all prior Presidents put together? Were you concerned about his increasing spending, but reducing taxes? Were you concerned about his no-bid secret contracts? Were you concerned about him losing over $9,000,000,000 in Iraq and not being able to find it? Were you concerned about him allowing war profiteering in Iraq? Were you concerned about his failure to adequately finance treament of veterans injured in the Iraq/Afghanistan War? Were you concerend about his failure to procured all the equipment necessary for soldiers to protect themselves? Were you concerned about his failure to prevent, and in many ways caused, the greatest banking collapse our country has ever had? Plus, many, amany other things that have escaped me. Then, I hear Republicans voice their complaints about Obama's stimulus package because they said they didn't have the time to read it over? Well, they quickly forget the $700,000,000 Bush rammed through Congress with even less time to consider. How about the lack of time for Congress to consider the Iraq War? These are all hypocritical statements. Historians have already said President Bush made the largest power grab by a US President in our history, and now you're worrying about Obama? Sorry, but I'm dismissing your concern as either bigotry, political bias, or fear of change. Obama long promised change, and that's what we're going to get. The American people decided that. You know, continuing to do the wrong thing won't make it right later. We need change!

If you aren't concerned about Bush's power grab, then you'll be in a state of bliss with Obama. He has already opened a website for you to track spending on the stimulus: www.recovery.gov I suggest you look at it periodically, but don't give me that stuff about "fearing" or being concerned about a "power grab." You favorite President, Bush, already grabbed most of it.

You might make more sense if you read what I wrote and responded accordingly. I could be mistaken but many of the numerous issues you posed to me as questions have not been established as fact and are essentially ideological opinions. To save me some time in responding and you some time reading those responses I say nonsense!

[Dan Conner]

You might make more sense if you read what I wrote and responded accordingly. I could be mistaken but many of the numerous issues you posed to me as questions have not been established as fact and are essentially ideological opinions. To save me some time in responding and you some time reading those responses I say nonsense!

Unfortunately Bob, none of what you have stated is established fact. However, much of what I've said has happened and been corroborated, even by Bush Administration officials. Even Ari Fleischer recently said the Iraq invasion wsa incorrectly carried out after wrong information. His administration was implicated in exposing a CIA operative, that's a fact (also treason in time of war). He has tortured - that is a fact. Bush personally admitted that. You can say nonsense all you want. I'm not here to convince you, but I am here to correct your misinformation.

[Bob Jentges]

There is an interesting column below at CNBC about another possible 52,000 American who have not been paying taxes on possible illegal Swiss bank accounts. Andcapitalism produces honesty and integrity?

http://www.cnbc.com/id/29405042/

I do not recall ever suggesting "capitalism produces honesty and integrity". The way I see it those are personal traits that people have or do not have regardles of what form of government they live under.

On those that have been avoiding paying legitimate taxes I say prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law, including fines, reimbursment, etc.

[Bob Jentges]

Unfortunately Bob, none of what you have stated is established fact. However, much of what I've said has happened and been corroborated, even by Bush Administration officials. Even Ari Fleischer recently said the Iraq invasion wsa incorrectly carried out after wrong information. His administration was implicated in exposing a CIA operative, that's a fact (also treason in time of war). He has tortured - that is a fact. Bush personally admitted that. You can say nonsense all you want. I'm not here to convince you, but I am here to correct your misinformation.

I read through this thread again, since it was first posted by Joe yesterday morning, and did not see that I had asserted any "facts". All I did was reference articles in Yahoo! Finance and Politico.

[Dan Conner]

I read through this thread again, since it was first posted by Joe yesterday morning, and did not see that I had asserted any "facts". All I did was reference articles in Yahoo! Finance and Politico.

I think you need to read through your replies again. In the Budget Forum you said, "Government is involved only in services i.e. police, fire, snow removal, etc." That is wrong just on the face of it. In that same response, you said that New York and California have the highest deficits, which you correlated to them having the highest taxes. That was also wrong. California has the 17th highest tax in the country. Hardly near the highest. I didn't even look up new York. There are many other instances where you have asserted facts that aren't facts. This was just the start of my search.

[Bob Jentges]

I think you need to read through your replies again. In the Budget Forum you said, "Government is involved only in services i.e. police, fire, snow removal, etc." That is wrong just on the face of it. In that same response, you said that New York and California have the highest deficits, which you correlated to them having the highest taxes. That was also wrong. California has the 17th highest tax in the country. Hardly near the highest. I didn't even look up new York. There are many other instances where you have asserted facts that aren't facts. This was just the start of my search.

For heaven sake, Dan! I think we should limit our discussion to the specific thread we are discussing at the time. But since you strayed, for this time only, I will respond to your quote from a different thread in this thread.

First,tell me some tangible product government actually produces. I have
been under the impression it produces nothing but regulates everything.

Second, from what I have read California and New York do have the highest
OVERALL taxes in the country. Maybe our disagreement is similar to what
someone once said: "I guess it depends on what the definition of tax
[is] is." Apparrently we read different publications which is probably not a
surprise to either of us.

[Dan Conner]

For heaven sake, Dan! I think we should limit our discussion to the specific thread we are discussing at the time. But since you strayed, for this time only, I will respond to your quote from a different thread in this thread.

First,tell me some tangible product government actually produces. I have
been under the impression it produces nothing but regulates everything.

Second, from what I have read California and New York do have the highest
OVERALL taxes in the country. Maybe our disagreement is similar to what
someone once said: "I guess it depends on what the definition of tax
[is] is." Apparrently we read different publications which is probably not a
surprise to either of us.

Well, where do I start? There are many many areas. Let's see there is the US Mint where all our countries coins are made. There is the Deptment of treasurey where dollars are printed, oh, then there's the largest printer in the world, the Government Printing Office. That's just a few off the top of my head. Of course, there are many other agencies that might produce non-tangible items, but so is the case in business. Were you in insurance? While that ain't tangible, the governemnt is probably the largest insurer in the country (SSA, FDIC, SLIDC, Flood insurance, Medicare, Meidcaid, SBA, VA, etc.etc.). How about NASA? They manufacture many of parts of the space shuttle. How about the NIH? They have developed cures for diseases? There are too many to go on. I think you listen too much to the far right about Government.

From what you have read ain't good enough. There are many authoritative websites ranking California in taxes. I read one ranking it 17 and another ranking it 20, That's a very long way form the top. That is closer to the middle than the top. If you want links to those websites let me know, but I think you should be able to find them. Just use "state taxes by rank." These sights used a comprehensive listing of all state taxes. However, like I said, I will give you the links if you can't find them. By the way, my references were non-partisan publications.

As far as keeping the discussions in the "thread?" You and I have been all over the forum, discussing many of the same issues in different threads. It's ludicrous for you to tell me I should only look for your inaccurracies in this one thread, when there are plenty of them in other threads. Did you think the other threads gave you more license to improvise or speak off the cuff? If you did, maybe I did the same here? I think you are wasting time talking about who is more pregnant here.

[Bob Jentges]

Well, where do I start? There are many many areas. Let's see there is the US Mint where all our countries coins are made. There is the Deptment of treasurey where dollars are printed, oh, then there's the largest printer in the world, the Government Printing Office. That's just a few off the top of my head. Of course, there are many other agencies that might produce non-tangible items, but so is the case in business. Were you in insurance? While that ain't tangible, the governemnt is probably the largest insurer in the country (SSA, FDIC, SLIDC, Flood insurance, Medicare, Meidcaid, SBA, VA, etc.etc.). How about NASA? They manufacture many of parts of the space shuttle. How about the NIH? They have developed cures for diseases? There are too many to go on. I think you listen too much to the far right about Government.

From what you have read ain't good enough. There are many authoritative websites ranking California in taxes. I read one ranking it 17 and another ranking it 20, That's a very long way form the top. That is closer to the middle than the top. If you want links to those websites let me know, but I think you should be able to find them. Just use "state taxes by rank." These sights used a comprehensive listing of all state taxes. However, like I said, I will give you the links if you can't find them. By the way, my references were non-partisan publications.

As far as keeping the discussions in the "thread?" You and I have been all over the forum, discussing many of the same issues in different threads. It's ludicrous for you to tell me I should only look for your inaccurracies in this one thread, when there are plenty of them in other threads. Did you think the other threads gave you more license to improvise or speak off the cuff? If you did, maybe I did the same here? I think you are wasting time talking about who is more pregnant here.

Any tangible property the government produces (you cited coins, dollars and a few others) it produces with taxpayers money. To me that is different than a private firm like for example a fictious Ajax Brick Factory that makes bricks based on private financing.

In answer to one of your questions, yes I was in the insurance business and in linking that to your comment about my suggestion we keep the discussion to the specific topic of the particular thread, when I went to court to assist in the defense of someone we insured regarding a wrongful death claim relating to a car accident I did not base the negligence defense on a wrongful death claim relating to a negligent shooting case. In my business I learned not to "speak off the cuff". I do not do that; I have some authority to support what I say; I could be wrong sometimes as could the authority I referenced (aren't we all) but I do not "speak off the cuff".

I took your suggestion and did a small amount of research on California and New York taxes. I found that in 2002 New York ranked #1 in total state and local personal taxes, and California ranked #14. In 2005 New York ranked #2 in state and local personal taxes paid per capita, and California ranked #20. I also found that as of 2/24/09 California ranked #3 in taxes paid on business, behind only New Jersey and Minnesota. I do not know how those figures would compute with respect to total tax burdon by state currently, but I am reasonably certain California and New York presently have the largest tax deficits of the 50 states. If one assumes both will face tax increases in an attempt to help bring their deficits in line, one might also assume that by the end of this fiscal year they could very well be the two heaviest taxed states in the country.

Maybe you could find it in your heart to be "fair" with me and give me at least partial credit for my thoughts, so my "fate" with you is not pre-determined no matter what I do and must rely only on "luck".

[Dan Conner]

Any tangible property the government produces (you cited coins, dollars and a few others) it produces with taxpayers money. To me that is different than a private firm like for example a fictious Ajax Brick Factory that makes bricks based on private financing.

In answer to one of your questions, yes I was in the insurance business and in linking that to your comment about my suggestion we keep the discussion to the specific topic of the particular thread, when I went to court to assist in the defense of someone we insured regarding a wrongful death claim relating to a car accident I did not base the negligence defense on a wrongful death claim relating to a negligent shooting case. In my business I learned not to "speak off the cuff". I do not do that; I have some authority to support what I say; I could be wrong sometimes as could the authority I referenced (aren't we all) but I do not "speak off the cuff".

I took your suggestion and did a small amount of research on California and New York taxes. I found that in 2002 New York ranked #1 in total state and local personal taxes, and California ranked #14. In 2005 New York ranked #2 in state and local personal taxes paid per capita, and California ranked #20. I also found that as of 2/24/09 California ranked #3 in taxes paid on business, behind only New Jersey and Minnesota. I do not know how those figures would compute with respect to total tax burdon by state currently, but I am reasonably certain California and New York presently have the largest tax deficits of the 50 states. If one assumes both will face tax increases in an attempt to help bring their deficits in line, one might also assume that by the end of this fiscal year they could very well be the two heaviest taxed states in the country.

Maybe you could find it in your heart to be "fair" with me and give me at least partial credit for my thoughts, so my "fate" with you is not pre-determined no matter what I do and must rely only on "luck".

What the heck is your point here? You asked for tangible items and you got them. I doubt the government makes bricks, but maybe they do somewhere. I hope you aren't thinking like private business because your fictious brick company ain't producing anything tangible either, unless you consider ficticious bricks as tangible. If Government did make bricks you would be complaining they are taking business away from private industry. I think your whole point here was foolish. I know of Government making bolts, machined parts, parts for aircraft, and spacecraft, drugs, medical equipment, all sorts of tools, how about nuclear weapons. The Government is the only entity with breeder reactors for producing weapons grade plutonium. How about the nuclear weapons themselves. While most of it is under contract now, they still do some, especially the real advanced and very secret work. Also, Government produces all sorts of money for others to spend.

You don't think printing is tangible? I think Glen Taylor would disagree with you. Almost all of his business involves printing. That's something. Only imagine this---the Government prints far more. When you say it prints with taxpayer's money---duh! Of course it does. Hopefully, you didn't think you were saying anything revealing there.

Also, what are you getting at about the Government not producing tangible things? Tell me what tangible things are produced by insurance companies? All they have is paper and agreements - and they never even produced the paper.

As far as "speaking off the cuff" is concerned, you have done a great deal of that. Your anti-tax ideas have wafted back and forth beteeen the threads. Your anti-government rants haven't been limited to this thread. They've come in over several threads. You have dealt with these same subjects elsewhere. As far as your negligent defense analogy, I don't understand what you are driving at, but I think you might be a little guilty of that in your California New York analogy.

Great, I'm glad to see you investigated and reluctantly correcteed yourself. California is nearer the middle than the top in taxation. Your business taxes are a smokescreen for the fact they are in the middle. You were talking about aggregate taxes, not business taxes. I never checked thoroughly about New York, but I believe they were closer to the top., like maybe #3. However, your whole point is lost on faulty analysis, since other states also near the top are far better with their budget. Anyway, your comparison is faulty and you should go back to the drawing boards and research it a little better. I don't really know that New York is in nearly as bad a shape as California. Your shallow analysis omits the fact that California was clobbered in the home mortgage crisis. Probably the worst in the nation. The economic downturn most heavily affected them for this reason - not because they tax a lot.

I intend to be "fair" with you, if you meant to use that word. I'm being fair with you like you are to me. I will respect and listen to your ideas, if you do the same. However, I don't think you or me promote any cause by judging others in worse shape than us. Far too many people do that already. Let's talk about the issues of your economic views and it's affect on the economy without talking about your motivations to not help others with your taxes. I flatly don't agree and I hope I never do. I want to hear about what your ideas are to get our nation out of this fix, not that you don't want to pay taxes for others or don't want to do this or that. You, like me, will be required to do what the law says we are to do. I guess what I am saying is that our country needs constructive ideas, not rants about the inadequacies of Government, anti-tax ideas, etc. They ain't going to work in these days. We are in a pinch, need new and better ideas, and then, we need to get four-square behind it.

[Bob Jentges]

What the heck is your point here? You asked for tangible items and you got them. I doubt the government makes bricks, but maybe they do somewhere. I hope you aren't thinking like private business because your fictious brick company ain't producing anything tangible either, unless you consider ficticious bricks as tangible. If Government did make bricks you would be complaining they are taking business away from private industry. I think your whole point here was foolish. I know of Government making bolts, machined parts, parts for aircraft, and spacecraft, drugs, medical equipment, all sorts of tools, how about nuclear weapons. The Government is the only entity with breeder reactors for producing weapons grade plutonium. How about the nuclear weapons themselves. While most of it is under contract now, they still do some, especially the real advanced and very secret work. Also, Government produces all sorts of money for others to spend.

You don't think printing is tangible? I think Glen Taylor would disagree with you. Almost all of his business involves printing. That's something. Only imagine this---the Government prints far more. When you say it prints with taxpayer's money---duh! Of course it does. Hopefully, you didn't think you were saying anything revealing there.

Also, what are you getting at about the Government not producing tangible things? Tell me what tangible things are produced by insurance companies? All they have is paper and agreements - and they never even produced the paper.

As far as "speaking off the cuff" is concerned, you have done a great deal of that. Your anti-tax ideas have wafted back and forth beteeen the threads. Your anti-government rants haven't been limited to this thread. They've come in over several threads. You have dealt with these same subjects elsewhere. As far as your negligent defense analogy, I don't understand what you are driving at, but I think you might be a little guilty of that in your California New York analogy.

Great, I'm glad to see you investigated and reluctantly correcteed yourself. California is nearer the middle than the top in taxation. Your business taxes are a smokescreen for the fact they are in the middle. You were talking about aggregate taxes, not business taxes. I never checked thoroughly about New York, but I believe they were closer to the top., like maybe #3. However, your whole point is lost on faulty analysis, since other states also near the top are far better with their budget. Anyway, your comparison is faulty and you should go back to the drawing boards and research it a little better. I don't really know that New York is in nearly as bad a shape as California. Your shallow analysis omits the fact that California was clobbered in the home mortgage crisis. Probably the worst in the nation. The economic downturn most heavily affected them for this reason - not because they tax a lot.

I intend to be "fair" with you, if you meant to use that word. I'm being fair with you like you are to me. I will respect and listen to your ideas, if you do the same. However, I don't think you or me promote any cause by judging others in worse shape than us. Far too many people do that already. Let's talk about the issues of your economic views and it's affect on the economy without talking about your motivations to not help others with your taxes. I flatly don't agree and I hope I never do. I want to hear about what your ideas are to get our nation out of this fix, not that you don't want to pay taxes for others or don't want to do this or that. You, like me, will be required to do what the law says we are to do. I guess what I am saying is that our country needs constructive ideas, not rants about the inadequacies of Government, anti-tax ideas, etc. They ain't going to work in these days. We are in a pinch, need new and better ideas, and then, we need to get four-square behind it.

I do not intend to wast another day squabbling with you!

[Dan Conner]

I do not intend to wast another day squabbling with you!

That's too bad. I think there are many important issues of the day, where people of opposing points of view need to talk. I hope you didn't expect only sychophants on this website?

[David Habrat]

One question for sake of a more balanced dialog. The freshman President is ready to steer the country back onto the road of Keynesian economics in arguing that his government policy will increase aggregate demand, thus increasing economic activity and reducing unemployment and deflation. Would anyone posting here like to suggest that this is a sound foundation for the future of economic freedom in our country? If you have your hand up, perhaps you should read The Road to Serfdom.

[Dan Conner]

One question for sake of a more balanced dialog. The freshman President is ready to steer the country back onto the road of Keynesian economics in arguing that his government policy will increase aggregate demand, thus increasing economic activity and reducing unemployment and deflation. Would anyone posting here like to suggest that this is a sound foundation for the future of economic freedom in our country? If you have your hand up, perhaps you should read The Road to Serfdom.

I think you are partially right. However, it is Government and individual spending that the Government desires to increase. That is the policy. If we can agree that increased spending leads to increased demand, then I guess you can use demand instead of spending, but spending would have been a better word to use.

You seem to assume the emergency stimulus spending bill is an ongoing and recurring event. President Obama clearly stated the stimulus bill is temporary emergency spending legislation. In other words, it was passed as a one-time law to stimulate our economy and maybe stem our rush to a great depression. It wasn't recurring expenditures spent yearly in the budget. The principle is that demand is increased by giving people/agencies/government money to be spent on immediate projects. They want the spending to happen as soon as possible because of the dire nature of the economy. Then, businesses will buy capital and hire workers to satisfy the demand. Thusly, businesses improve along with employment, slowing or stopping our descent into depression. Of course, it is possible that inflation could occur, but manipulation of interest rates can help control that. However, inflation is a minor worry right now. Also, it is possible the last stimulus spending bill won't be enough. Then the President could come back and ask for another one, but that isn't highly probable.

Right now, our economy is falling like a proverbial rock. Our gross national product shrank 6% in the last quarter. That was a record, or near one. Something needed to be done, for fear we might be headed for oblivion. I have no idea what you are referring to when you say economic freedom. Nothing here interferes with that. Try losing your job, having no income and see if that interferes with your economic freedom. Government has long done the same thing as Obama has implemented. We've had other periods of massive spending, and I don't think your freedom was impinged then? If so, please let me know. In some cases, it has probably been enhanced. Even as conservative as Bush was, it was he who proposed the emergency socialist $700,000,000 bank bailout. Many conservative Republicans voted in favor of that as well.

It sounds like you are concerned about your economic freedom. Are you concerned about your physical freedom? If you are, then you should have been protesting the unlimited powers, exerted by our former President, to declare anyone in our country a national threat and lock them away indefinitely, without benefit of trial or habeas corpus. He could have literally plucked anyone off the street where he, and he alone, decided that. There is a person (US citizen) now, who will finally be undergoing trial after being imprisoned by Bush for 7 years in a US prison, without trial or benefit of attorney. This seemed like a serious infringement on freedom to me. Do you want Obama to have that power? What if he just didn't like you?

I think Republicans and Democrats alike have recognized we have a potentially catastrophic economic crisis looming. They are employing the best tools they have to try to remedy that. It has nothing to do with your freedoms. It has to do with our economic survival. I don't understand the rest of what you are saying or the relevance of the book

[David Habrat]

Gains founded on credit spending (vs. technology advances or productivity improvement) have one eventual outcome…a correction. This particular correction has been exacerbated in the extreme by two words…bail out! How can a credit drunk nation fix its problems by pulling out the national credit card and running up further debt? Will that promote responsible spending and establish stable market equilibrium? Can government really determine the right level of need? HEADLINE $318 Billion Tax hit proposed…“From each according to his ability, to each according to his need” is Obama justice. Can you name that ideology? I might ask of my fellow writers the same question that was asked of the freshman President. “Upon what matrix will you declare this policy a success?” His answer was that there will be an “increase in jobs”. You might ask yourself how many jobs can one time spending support? Do you really think that the government can step away from so dominant a roll that they account for 27% of the GDP? That kind of power is not easily rolled back.

[Dan Conner]

Gains founded on credit spending (vs. technology advances or productivity improvement) have one eventual outcome…a correction. This particular correction has been exacerbated in the extreme by two words…bail out! How can a credit drunk nation fix its problems by pulling out the national credit card and running up further debt? Will that promote responsible spending and establish stable market equilibrium? Can government really determine the right level of need? HEADLINE $318 Billion Tax hit proposed…“From each according to his ability, to each according to his need” is Obama justice. Can you name that ideology? I might ask of my fellow writers the same question that was asked of the freshman President. “Upon what matrix will you declare this policy a success?” His answer was that there will be an “increase in jobs”. You might ask yourself how many jobs can one time spending support? Do you really think that the government can step away from so dominant a roll that they account for 27% of the GDP? That kind of power is not easily rolled back.

I read you post, but I'm having a hard time understanding what cogent point you are making. Credit spending vs. technology and productivity? You are comparing apples and oranges here. Credit is finance. While credit processing uses technology and productivity, there is no direct correlation, except that without credit technology and productivity would be stilted. Did you buy a car on credit? A home? Did you purchase gas for the car with a credit card? If you didn't you are a very rare person, or you are a very bad credit risk and no one will give you a card. As far as credit is concerned, it has existed from time in memoriam. A hundred+ years ago general stores allowed people to run a tab. That's because as a farm based economy, payday was usually only once a year. The general store many times would carry people until the crop came in.

Credit has expanded over the years to a very complex, but lightening quick system for processing it. Now, people even have debit cards. As far as, what I think you mean by, correction is concerned. I think you refer to deflation/recession/depression or whatever. There have been "corrections" for a very long time. I know there was a severe correction (recession) near the end of the 19th century. Much of that caused by the banking industry, just like now. There were no bailouts then, nor at many later times, and guess what, we still have recessions/depressions/deflation/corrections, or whatever you might want to call it. Certainly, people (being the public, like consumers) have been on a rather vigorous buying binge over the last 20 years, building up considerable consumer debt. Government has also been doing that. So, we are in a pickle right now. To me, the object of the game is to now use that wonder of biology that we have, called a brain, and try to solve the problem causing the least pain.

I you are a patient, I think you would prefer the doctor use whatever methods he can to reduce the pain of surgery. The same here. What purpose is served by causing unnecessary and needless pain, if it could be mitigated? Bail outs, if you mean bank bail outs, aren't exacerbating anything. They are intended to be part of the cure that will hopefully heal the patient. The same with mortgages.

As far as credit is concerned, you are dreaming if you ever think the modern world is ever going to eliminate credit. Countries trade with each other on credit, people loan on credit, business capitalize on credit. Without it, you might as well look back about 300 years and that's where we would be. Technology has advanced based on credit. How do you think Apple capitalized for national sales starting with two guys working out of a garage? Credit is the fuel for the world's economies. Eliminating that will drasticly reduce sales. And guess what happens then, jobs are lost, and there you go, right into the predicament we are trying to avoid...economic collapse.

I'm sure cavemen and other primitives could function without credit, but then...you'd be primitive. In case you're wondering, the US ran up a far larger debt, compared to GDP, during WWII. It's just that the economy was a lot smaller then.

I don't understand much of what you are saying after the part about our country running up more debt. If you are referring to taxation for helping others, that been going on for many many years already. In the early 1900's people were put on the "dole", remember that? That was government assistance. I won't go into length about this because I've already discussed this on a prior post, but government helping others is a part of the US Constitution. Read the preamble , where it says, "promote the general welfare."

As far as building a further debt, you're right. It will increase and it will need to be repaid. However, we can do that in our lifetime. However, that requires taxes, and taxes have been an element of government for thousands of years. This might not be a good analogy, but it's the best I can think of now: You are a member of a huge "club", "association", "fraternal order", or "fraternity", whatever you might refer to it as. Being a member requires certain responsibilities and obligations. If you want to be a member, you have to fulfill those responsibilities. Generally, those responsibilities aren't optional. Taxes are, and have been, one of those responsibilities for too many years to count. Remember the Romans collected taxes? How else are your roads built, your sewage and garbage processed, your water supplied, your police and fire protection given? I'm sorry, but this isn't a world where we get what we want without paying for it. There are always strings. You already live in an industrialized country with the lowest tax burden and fewest responsibilities.

[Ben Willaert]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Income_Taxes_By_Country.svg#filelinks

You will notice our personal income taxes are indeed low but our corporate income taxes are amongst the highest. We are also one of the few that tax corporate more then personal. Our high standard of living is dependant on businesses being allowed to succeed to pay our tax burden.

[Dan Conner]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Income_Taxes_By_Country.svg#filelinks

You will notice our personal income taxes are indeed low but our corporate income taxes are amongst the highest. We are also one of the few that tax corporate more then personal. Our high standard of living is dependant on businesses being allowed to succeed to pay our tax burden.

Nope, you better investigate that one a little better. The corporate tax rate in the US is one of the highest in the world, BUT CORPORATIONS DON'T PAY THAT. The actual corporate taxes paid in the US is one of the lowest in the world. They get lots and lots of exemptions. However, you'll find that corporations love to lie with that little statisitic. Remember, it is the taxes PAID that counts. How cares about the theoretical rate.

[Ben Willaert]

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/30/16/41069272.pdf
Well I can’t find anything on taxes paid although I did find corporate tax revenue as a percentage of GDP. We were middle of the pack on that one. I would bet that could be explained by the increased number of LLCs contributing to our GDP but not paying corporate income taxes.

Besides, aren’t write offs a good thing. Usually they are for businesses spending money that benefits society. There again you have the actual compassion of partaking in charity versus being taxed higher so the government can do it for us. I think it is better to contribute on our own. Then we get to see our impact first hand and can become better because of it. When the government does it for us we are too removed to get the emotional benefits.

[Dan Conner]

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/30/16/41069272.pdf
Well I can’t find anything on taxes paid although I did find corporate tax revenue as a percentage of GDP. We were middle of the pack on that one. I would bet that could be explained by the increased number of LLCs contributing to our GDP but not paying corporate income taxes.

Besides, aren’t write offs a good thing. Usually they are for businesses spending money that benefits society. There again you have the actual compassion of partaking in charity versus being taxed higher so the government can do it for us. I think it is better to contribute on our own. Then we get to see our impact first hand and can become better because of it. When the government does it for us we are too removed to get the emotional benefits.

No, it's not a good thing, especially when they can't tell the truth about it. Doesn't it seem like they want to hide something? If they don't pay the highest, why are they telling everyone they do? A little deception. More lying. Also, it's not good because they, like everything else, need to do their share. If they don't, that means you and I have to make up for it. Sometimes, I think you aren't looking with a macro point of view. If corporations aren't doing their share, then others need to do MORE than their share. Don't give me that spending good for society stuff. All of our spending benefits society. There's no more than ours.

I have no compassion for a corporation. They are not people. They can not vote. They are not included in the Constitution as any protected entity. Paying taxes is not volutary. It is what the law says. That's the way it is in every country of the world. I don't know what you are thinking of, that you think taxes should be voluntary. If they made it voluntary, you wouldn't have roads, water or sewer systems. Then, you would be complaining about the poor conditions in the country. Even the Romans taxed 2000 years ago. I think you need to be more realist here.

It's like I said before. You're in a club and you need to pay dues. Otherwise, you won't be in the club. However, I guess you can benefit from the "nanny" state by having the prison system take care of you for tax evasion. You again missed the point--corporations are NOT doing their share.

[Ben Willaert]

It is not the large corporations that aren’t carrying their share as you say. They do pay among the highest corporate taxes in the world. The percentage of corporate taxes to GDP is brought down by corporate tax exempt businesses. These small businesses contribute to GDP but they do not pay corporate taxes. It is the mom and pops you should be going after. They are the ones not carrying their weight according to you. They pay taxes as an individual, which are among the lowest.

“There is a third explanation that has received relatively little attention, yet may be the single-most important answer to the corporate tax conundrum. In the United States, federal and state business and tax laws provide firms with considerable flexibility in the legal form of organization. Rather than organize as regular corporations subject to two levels of tax (at the corporation and the shareholder levels), businesses may organize as S corporations, partnerships, or limited liability companies that are not subject to entity-level tax. Since the Tax Reform Act of 1986, which lowered the top individual income tax rate below the top corporate tax rate, the share of taxable business income earned through passthrough entities (including sole proprietorships) has increased by 75 percent from 29 percent in 1987 to 52 percent in 2004 (see table). There is a large body of empirical evidence that confirms that corporate income tax rates that are high relative to individual income tax rates reduce the share of U.S. business activity conducted in corporate form.” http://www.taxanalysts.com/www/features.nsf/Articles/FE9DCA58402875D7852573680064DA50?OpenDocument

[Dan Conner]

It is not the large corporations that aren’t carrying their share as you say. They do pay among the highest corporate taxes in the world. The percentage of corporate taxes to GDP is brought down by corporate tax exempt businesses. These small businesses contribute to GDP but they do not pay corporate taxes. It is the mom and pops you should be going after. They are the ones not carrying their weight according to you. They pay taxes as an individual, which are among the lowest.

“There is a third explanation that has received relatively little attention, yet may be the single-most important answer to the corporate tax conundrum. In the United States, federal and state business and tax laws provide firms with considerable flexibility in the legal form of organization. Rather than organize as regular corporations subject to two levels of tax (at the corporation and the shareholder levels), businesses may organize as S corporations, partnerships, or limited liability companies that are not subject to entity-level tax. Since the Tax Reform Act of 1986, which lowered the top individual income tax rate below the top corporate tax rate, the share of taxable business income earned through passthrough entities (including sole proprietorships) has increased by 75 percent from 29 percent in 1987 to 52 percent in 2004 (see table). There is a large body of empirical evidence that confirms that corporate income tax rates that are high relative to individual income tax rates reduce the share of U.S. business activity conducted in corporate form.” http://www.taxanalysts.com/www/features.nsf/Articles/FE9DCA58402875D7852573680064DA50?OpenDocument


Ben, you are wrong again. We are talking about CORPORATE taxes here. Not businesses mixed with corporations, but corporations. You can rationalize all you want, but they don't. You can argue as long as you want, using whatever rationale you want, but corporations don't pay as much as most do in industrialized countries. Your own link said this--did you read it?

Try this: http://www.reclaimdemocracy.org/corporate_welfare/real_tax_rates_plummet.php

and this:http://www.nolo.com/article.cfm/objectId/BACFCE69-7858-4F6D-ACB8839F3BAC4187/111/182/241/ART/

and this:http://www.ctj.org/html/corp0205.htm

In this one Democrats have even offered to cut the rate, but eliminate deductions. Guess what taxes collected will INCREASE:http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=ag7lSuB.yyII&refer=home

You have to become better informed, then make your arguement.

You are clear about your scrooge attitudes, not willing to help others, but you jump to protect the rights of people/businesses that aren't doing their share. We will never agree about taxation or responsibility. Responsibility for you is not responsibility. It's you wanting to use all the things taxpayers have paid for, but not do your part and help pay for them. The only way I can seem to explain it is that you want some kind of social welfare. You know, use what our nation has, but not pay for it. Meanwhile, you can continue on your crusade to defend the rights of people to smoke, so they can adversely affect others with second-hand smoke and insurance premiums and support alcoholics, by offering more cheap drinks. I don't agree with your fixes. I think they are 180 degrees out of kilter, but to everyone their own.

I can tell you one thing. There is going to be a tax increase on people who need to start paying their share. Hopefully, Minnesota will resolve some of its tax equity issues and have the wealthy pay their share. Meanwhile, you can continue to look to the West for the sun to rise. After this, you can just talk to the hand.

[Ben Willaert]

Yes I did read it. Corporate tax is business tax. Corporate taxes as a percentage of GDP do include c-corps as well as s-corps, LLCs, partnerships and sole proprietorships. None besides c-corps actually pay corporate tax. All the rest only pay taxes through profits of the stockholders.

Sure, your references (from questionable agenda websites) hand pick a few examples and let them represent all corporations. I will pick one. The most hated Exxon mobile. In 2007 they paid 34% corporate income tax. Worldwide they paid 49% tax in the first quarter of 2008. This happened while most of the companies your websites hand picked had some significant situations that led to their high write offs. The average is 26%, take out the few write off over achievers your websites found and most corporations are above that. That does not compete in the global market. http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/may2008/db2008051_596535.htm?chan=top+news_top+news+index_ news+%2B+analysis

In reality one of the biggest problems is caused by our high corporate tax rates. Many corporations base their research and development here in the U.S. where they can use the write offs to lower their taxes. Their plants are in countries with low corporate income taxes. That way they get the motivation, ingenuity and innovation capitalism has to offer while using the low taxes of other countries for the production of their products. Rangel wants to stop that and I agree. I have a different idea of how to. Let’s lower government spending so we can lower the corporate taxes so the corporations can do all their business here. That means more jobs, more GDP and more businesses which add to more tax payers to foot the huge tax bill we are ringing up. http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_49/b4061066.htm

Controlling government spending would ease the need for such high taxes.
You want everyone to be responsible for everyone else but no one to be responsible for themselves. Let’s help people when they fall, but get them back on their feet instead of making them dependant on the government. The less government intervention, the higher the potential for our great country. When that potential is achieved we will have our high standard of living, and became a better people in the process. Government dependency does nothing for making us better individuals.

I am not sure where I ever advocated cheap drinks or smokers rights. I think private health insurance companies are right to charge higher premiums because they provide smokers with many ways to quit. Government taxes just use smoker’s addiction to steal money from them. I don’t know where you get the cheap drinks thing.

I also don’t know who you are going to tax when we are all on the dole because high corporate taxes chased all our businesses away and government dependency destroys our motivation.

[Dan Conner]

Yes I did read it. Corporate tax is business tax. Corporate taxes as a percentage of GDP do include c-corps as well as s-corps, LLCs, partnerships and sole proprietorships. None besides c-corps actually pay corporate tax. All the rest only pay taxes through profits of the stockholders.

Sure, your references (from questionable agenda websites) hand pick a few examples and let them represent all corporations. I will pick one. The most hated Exxon mobile. In 2007 they paid 34% corporate income tax. Worldwide they paid 49% tax in the first quarter of 2008. This happened while most of the companies your websites hand picked had some significant situations that led to their high write offs. The average is 26%, take out the few write off over achievers your websites found and most corporations are above that. That does not compete in the global market. http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/may2008/db2008051_596535.htm?chan=top+news_top+news+index_ news+%2B+analysis

In reality one of the biggest problems is caused by our high corporate tax rates. Many corporations base their research and development here in the U.S. where they can use the write offs to lower their taxes. Their plants are in countries with low corporate income taxes. That way they get the motivation, ingenuity and innovation capitalism has to offer while using the low taxes of other countries for the production of their products. Rangel wants to stop that and I agree. I have a different idea of how to. Let’s lower government spending so we can lower the corporate taxes so the corporations can do all their business here. That means more jobs, more GDP and more businesses which add to more tax payers to foot the huge tax bill we are ringing up. http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_49/b4061066.htm

Controlling government spending would ease the need for such high taxes.
You want everyone to be responsible for everyone else but no one to be responsible for themselves. Let’s help people when they fall, but get them back on their feet instead of making them dependant on the government. The less government intervention, the higher the potential for our great country. When that potential is achieved we will have our high standard of living, and became a better people in the process. Government dependency does nothing for making us better individuals.

I am not sure where I ever advocated cheap drinks or smokers rights. I think private health insurance companies are right to charge higher premiums because they provide smokers with many ways to quit. Government taxes just use smoker’s addiction to steal money from them. I don’t know where you get the cheap drinks thing.

I also don’t know who you are going to tax when we are all on the dole because high corporate taxes chased all our businesses away and government dependency destroys our motivation.

I don't have a lot of time here, so I'm only going to comment on the first paragraph. Partnerships and proprietorships do not pay corporate taxes because they are not incorporated. In fact, there is a partnership tax return partnershps complete, which is totally differenct from corporate tax returns. Proprietorships file taxes with a regular self-employment tax return schedule SE. They don't have profits. They have net earnings from self employment. These are for businesses owned totally by one person. These are NOT grouped with corporations because they are not incorporated and they are taxed at a difference rate. There is no stock or dividends. Corporations pay corporate taxes on the profits earned by the corporation. NONE fo these variations of corporations pay taxes through stock holders. They pay separate tax from stockholders. Proprietors and partnership don't have stockholders. Stock holders pay separate taxes on dividends received on their shares and capital gains, if any. Corporate taxes do NOT include sole proprietorships or partnerships BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT INCORPORATED. There are special rules and laws that apply to corporations. There is a legal process that has to take place to become a corporation. There are articles of incorporation, listing of officers, meeting requirements, and initial offerings of stock to the various owners. There is no stock for private businesses (proprietorships) or partnerships.

I don't have time now to refute the rest of what you say.

[Ben Willaert]

You are correct, we are both on the same page on the different types of businesses. I will restate my point. For less confusion, let me define businesses as anything besides c-corporations for my postings.

I had brought up corporate taxes as a percentage of GDP as a measure of corporate taxes paid instead of the high tax rate you refute. That is all taxes received from corporations divided by the GDP. Our figure is 2.2% which is towards the low end compared to other countries average of 3.4%.

My original argument is that our corporations pay higher taxes then corporations in other countries. To then explain why our corporate tax revenue to GDP is low, I proposed the theory that since many of our businesses contributes to GDP but not to corporate taxes, this figure is skewed. Corporate taxes appear to be lower then they really are because all these businesses contribute to GDP but not to corporate taxes. They affect one side but not the other.

Businesses produce products that add to GDP but do not pay corporate taxes. That means the 2.2% is low because these businesses do not pay taxes towards that figure. In order to get an accurate reading on corporate taxes, businesses contributions to GDP would have to be subtracted before corporate tax revenue is divided by the adjusted GDP.

[Dan Conner]

You are correct, we are both on the same page on the different types of businesses. I will restate my point. For less confusion, let me define businesses as anything besides c-corporations for my postings.

I had brought up corporate taxes as a percentage of GDP as a measure of corporate taxes paid instead of the high tax rate you refute. That is all taxes received from corporations divided by the GDP. Our figure is 2.2% which is towards the low end compared to other countries average of 3.4%.

My original argument is that our corporations pay higher taxes then corporations in other countries. To then explain why our corporate tax revenue to GDP is low, I proposed the theory that since many of our businesses contributes to GDP but not to corporate taxes, this figure is skewed. Corporate taxes appear to be lower then they really are because all these businesses contribute to GDP but not to corporate taxes. They affect one side but not the other.

Businesses produce products that add to GDP but do not pay corporate taxes. That means the 2.2% is low because these businesses do not pay taxes towards that figure. In order to get an accurate reading on corporate taxes, businesses contributions to GDP would have to be subtracted before corporate tax revenue is divided by the adjusted GDP.

No, you are missing the obvious truth to this. Corporations pay 2.2% of GDP and other countries 3.4% of GDP. Our corporations pay far, far less than other countries. There is no skewing because only corporate earnings are considered in both cases. The people who measured this aren't trying to compare apples and oranges. Your theory is wrong. I know you want to make it right, to "skew " the results so it is favorable to corporations, but it is not. Our corporations pay far less in taxes, but they tout the fact they have a higher rate. It's basically lying with statistics. I don't know that I understand your gyrations above, but is is very simple. CORPORATIONS DO NOT PAY AS MUCH IN CORPORATE TAXES AS OTHER INDUSTRIALIZED COUNTRIES. This doesn't need to be rationalized, that just the fact of it.

[Ben Willaert]

It is not the large corporations that aren’t carrying their share as you say. They do pay among the highest corporate taxes in the world. The percentage of corporate taxes to GDP is brought down by corporate tax exempt businesses. These small businesses contribute to GDP but they do not pay corporate taxes. It is the mom and pops you should be going after. They are the ones not carrying their weight according to you. They pay taxes as an individual, which are among the lowest.

“There is a third explanation that has received relatively little attention, yet may be the single-most important answer to the corporate tax conundrum. In the United States, federal and state business and tax laws provide firms with considerable flexibility in the legal form of organization. Rather than organize as regular corporations subject to two levels of tax (at the corporation and the shareholder levels), businesses may organize as S corporations, partnerships, or limited liability companies that are not subject to entity-level tax. Since the Tax Reform Act of 1986, which lowered the top individual income tax rate below the top corporate tax rate, the share of taxable business income earned through passthrough entities (including sole proprietorships) has increased by 75 percent from 29 percent in 1987 to 52 percent in 2004 (see table). There is a large body of empirical evidence that confirms that corporate income tax rates that are high relative to individual income tax rates reduce the share of U.S. business activity conducted in corporate form.” http://www.taxanalysts.com/www/features.nsf/Articles/FE9DCA58402875D7852573680064DA50?OpenDocument

Please reread this post.

We can go back and forth on this all you want. You stick with making uniformed conclusions from final numbers and I will look at the root of those numbers to understand why they are what they are. Sorry that I don’t buy into Dan Connor economics.

Who pays what share of taxes doesn’t matter nearly as much as who is spending that money. If government would control it’s spending we would be a lot better off. Individuals could purchase more goods and corporations could provide more jobs. It is the Wal-Mart model. Making a profit of $.10 a billion times is better then making a profit of $100 a few hundred times. Taxing more workers and more businesses a little will provide more tax revenue then high taxes limiting the amount of workers and businesses within an economy. Add that to reduced spending, and we could really make up some ground on the deficit.

[Dan Conner]

Please reread this post.

We can go back and forth on this all you want. You stick with making uniformed conclusions from final numbers and I will look at the root of those numbers to understand why they are what they are. Sorry that I don’t buy into Dan Connor economics.

Who pays what share of taxes doesn’t matter nearly as much as who is spending that money. If government would control it’s spending we would be a lot better off. Individuals could purchase more goods and corporations could provide more jobs. It is the Wal-Mart model. Making a profit of $.10 a billion times is better then making a profit of $100 a few hundred times. Taxing more workers and more businesses a little will provide more tax revenue then high taxes limiting the amount of workers and businesses within an economy. Add that to reduced spending, and we could really make up some ground on the deficit.

I think it is best for you to not conflate issues here. If the arguement is about Government spending, then talk about Government spending, but if the issue is corporate taxes, then confine the arguement to corporate taxes. It is not appropriate to misinform about one issue because it is justified by another. Corporate taxes paid in America are far lower than most industrialize nations - that's a fact. If there is another arguement about Government control of spending make it, but the two oranges-apples debate shouldn't be confused.

I didn't read many of the references you furnished. Maybe this was one of them. However, it succinctly says what I have been saying. Corporate taxes paid are LOW:

http://www.smartmoney.com/investing/economy/High-Corporate-Tax-Rate-Is-Misleading-22463/

The above article is from the conservative Wall Street Journal

[Ben Willaert]

From your article:

“Part of the answer is that big U.S. companies have become expert at hiding profits in tax havens overseas. And many of the smaller ones simply pass through their income to owners who then report it on their personal returns.”

"Usage of pass-through forms of business organization can be viewed as a form of 'self-help' corporate tax integration,"

These are the very things I am talking about. Our small businesses (pass-through), the backbone of our country, do not pay corporate taxes. You are focusing on large c-corps when it is the small businesses that aren’t paying their fair share according to you. Any reform would mean making those small businesses pay more taxes. The large c-corps hide their profits by having their production facilities in other countries with lower tax rates. Like I said before, their R&D is here where they can use our innovation and ingenuity, while they produce the products in other countries for less then they could here partially because of our high taxes. Cheaper labor is a whole different subject.

[Dan Conner]

From your article:

“Part of the answer is that big U.S. companies have become expert at hiding profits in tax havens overseas. And many of the smaller ones simply pass through their income to owners who then report it on their personal returns.”

"Usage of pass-through forms of business organization can be viewed as a form of 'self-help' corporate tax integration,"

These are the very things I am talking about. Our small businesses (pass-through), the backbone of our country, do not pay corporate taxes. You are focusing on large c-corps when it is the small businesses that aren’t paying their fair share according to you. Any reform would mean making those small businesses pay more taxes. The large c-corps hide their profits by having their production facilities in other countries with lower tax rates. Like I said before, their R&D is here where they can use our innovation and ingenuity, while they produce the products in other countries for less then they could here partially because of our high taxes. Cheaper labor is a whole different subject.

You are muddling the issues again. Small businesses, that don't pay corporate taxes, are not corporations. They are small business, self-employed, or whatever, but they are not corporations. They were not included in the corporate tax figures. I have never said small businesses aren't paying their share. I haven't even investigated that subject. However, corporations are the ones not paying as much as corporations in other industrialized countries. You are wandering off the subject.

The arguement that corporations are moving their production facilities overseas is correct, but irrelevant to the issue of taxes. It might be another issue about how "patriotic" corporations are, but not relevant to taxes paid here. I don't care about what vehicle a business is using to lower their taxes paid. It only matters that they are paying less than corporations in other countries. That means the US is getting proportionately less revenue form corporations - they aren't paying their share. Why is the reason important to you? All that should count here is the bottom line - they are paying less corporates taxes, as a percent of GDP, than corporations in most other industrialized countries, period.

If a small business reports as self-employed, then they are considered among their share of self-employed income, not corporations.

I certainly agree with the WSJ about tightening up the corporate tax code. Go ahead and loweer the rate, but not without eliminating the tax dodges. Close the tax loopholes for corporations and make them pay their share.

[Ben Willaert]

Let’s take a step back. Apparently we aren’t on the same page as to the different types of business organizations. All of these businesses organizations contribute to GDP. Notice only three are taxed at the corporate level. The rest are “pass-through” which are not taxed at the corporate level.

“Here's the breakdown of the various types of organizations.
Taxed at the corporate level:
• Corporations,
• LLCs taxed as corporations, and
• Non-profit organizations
Taxed at the shareholder level ("Pass-through entities"):
• Schedule C sole proprietors,
• S-Corporations,
• Partnerships, and
• LLC/LLP/PLLC/PLLP taxed as partnerships”
http://taxes.about.com/od/taxplanning/a/incorporating.htm

Now let’s look at the figures again:

GDP is the addition of all goods and services in the country for one year by all business organizations. Let’s say it is $5000

Corporate taxes are paid by c-corps. Let’s say that comes to $100.

Dividing corporate taxes by the total GDP gives us 2% corporate tax revenue.

The problem is that the “pass-through” businesses organizations are unaccounted for on the tax side. In order to make it right, their contribution to GDP should be subtracted. Let’s say they contribute $2000 to the GDP. That $2000 needs to be subtracted from the original $5000 to give us the $3000 produced by the same corporations that are being taxed as corporations. Then we would have 3.3% corporate tax revenue.

All of these articles are pointing out that the reason why corporate tax revenue is lower than the tax rates is because small businesses do not pay the corporate taxes. They are talking about taxing small businesses as large corporations as the solution to raise tax revenue. Go back through the articles and remember “pass-through” is small business. Like this quote from the WSJ:
"Usage of pass-through forms of business organization can be viewed as a form of 'self-help' corporate tax integration,"

The point about corporations doing R&D here and having production elsewhere is also in these articles as reasons why tax revenue is lower then the tax rate. R&D gets big write offs, but usually the taxes are gained on the production end of a corporation. A lot of corporations are avoiding that by putting their production elsewhere. Only the large write off part of their corporations are in the U.S.

Bottom line is that if you want tighten up the tax code, it is the small businesses that will end up paying much more in taxes. And yes, the corporations are paying more then other countries. I already cited Exxon mobile paid 34% taxes, which is higher then most countries corporations. But they wouldn't be affected by this. Truth is, most large corporations wouldn't be affected at all. You're going after small businesses and you don't realize it.

[Dan Conner]

Let’s take a step back. Apparently we aren’t on the same page as to the different types of business organizations. All of these businesses organizations contribute to GDP. Notice only three are taxed at the corporate level. The rest are “pass-through” which are not taxed at the corporate level.

“Here's the breakdown of the various types of organizations.
Taxed at the corporate level:
• Corporations,
• LLCs taxed as corporations, and
• Non-profit organizations
Taxed at the shareholder level ("Pass-through entities"):
• Schedule C sole proprietors,
• S-Corporations,
• Partnerships, and
• LLC/LLP/PLLC/PLLP taxed as partnerships”
http://taxes.about.com/od/taxplanning/a/incorporating.htm

Now let’s look at the figures again:

GDP is the addition of all goods and services in the country for one year by all business organizations. Let’s say it is $5000

Corporate taxes are paid by c-corps. Let’s say that comes to $100.

Dividing corporate taxes by the total GDP gives us 2% corporate tax revenue.

The problem is that the “pass-through” businesses organizations are unaccounted for on the tax side. In order to make it right, their contribution to GDP should be subtracted. Let’s say they contribute $2000 to the GDP. That $2000 needs to be subtracted from the original $5000 to give us the $3000 produced by the same corporations that are being taxed as corporations. Then we would have 3.3% corporate tax revenue.

All of these articles are pointing out that the reason why corporate tax revenue is lower than the tax rates is because small businesses do not pay the corporate taxes. They are talking about taxing small businesses as large corporations as the solution to raise tax revenue. Go back through the articles and remember “pass-through” is small business. Like this quote from the WSJ:
"Usage of pass-through forms of business organization can be viewed as a form of 'self-help' corporate tax integration,"

The point about corporations doing R&D here and having production elsewhere is also in these articles as reasons why tax revenue is lower then the tax rate. R&D gets big write offs, but usually the taxes are gained on the production end of a corporation. A lot of corporations are avoiding that by putting their production elsewhere. Only the large write off part of their corporations are in the U.S.

Bottom line is that if you want tighten up the tax code, it is the small businesses that will end up paying much more in taxes. And yes, the corporations are paying more then other countries. I already cited Exxon mobile paid 34% taxes, which is higher then most countries corporations. But they wouldn't be affected by this. Truth is, most large corporations wouldn't be affected at all. You're going after small businesses and you don't realize it.

I'm sorry, but you are still wrong. The URL from the WSJ, that I attached discussed only corporate taxes. Particularly large corporations. It attributed the tax "dodge" that they are using to be that they divert more of the corporate earning to individual, instead of the corporation. I am interpreting "pass through" to mean the corporations elects to pay large deductible dividends, bond interest, and executive compensation, which diverts that income from taxable corporate income to personal income. Then, the individual receiving the money pays income tax on it. So, the individual gets high earnings from the ownership and has to pay taxes accordingly. The corporation deducts this as an expense. It is basically foregone profit. The article also said corporations are investing a lot of money in foreign "tax havens" to reduce tax liability.

The arguement of the income diversion is a total distraction from the point I've been making that corporations are not paying nearly the percentage of taxes as corporations from other industrialized countries. It matters not the methodology/process for doing that. It only matters that they are not paying as much. That flies in the face of their assertion that they pay more. In other words they have lied.

Earlier, you asserted they paid the highest in the world. This is evidence they don't. In fact, they pay among the lowest. I selected the Wall Street Journal article because it is conservative and would more likely represent your point of view, but it does not. It doesn't even discuss small business vs. corporations. There was not discussion of money going to small business from corporations. That doesn't happen unless there is a contract for services or product from that small business. They are talking about the money going to INDIVIDUALS. Which then, would be covered by the individual income tax rate.

We are in a generally distractive and counterproductive debate anyway, because it still stands that corporations don't pay as much as other corporations in other industrialized countries. I am concerned that US corporations have preemptivley communicated to the US public that they pay the highest taxes in the world, when they don't. They pay one of the lowest rates in the world. They are lying about that in an effort to get their taxes lowered even more, but it won't work.

[Ben Willaert]

I'm sorry, but you are still wrong. The URL from the WSJ, that I attached discussed only corporate taxes. Particularly large corporations. It attributed the tax "dodge" that they are using to be that they divert more of the corporate earning to individual, instead of the corporation. I am interpreting "pass through" to mean the corporations elects to pay large deductible dividends, bond interest, and executive compensation, which diverts that income from taxable corporate income to personal income. Then, the individual receiving the money pays income tax on it. So, the individual gets high earnings from the ownership and has to pay taxes accordingly. The corporation deducts this as an expense. It is basically foregone profit. The article also said corporations are investing a lot of money in foreign "tax havens" to reduce tax liability.


Well it is time to reread them again with the correct interpretation of "pass through". Partnerships, LLCs and S corporations are our small businesses. The small business exemptions is what they are arguing should be dropped.

Partnerships, LLCs, and S corporations are examples of businesses that have pass-through taxes.
http://www.allbusiness.com/accounting-reporting/corporate-taxes/2551-1.html

S Corporations and LLCs are taxed as if they were partnerships - no tax is due on the entity level. Each partnership engaged in a trade or business must file a return on Form 1065 showing its income, deductions, and other required information. The return shows the names and addresses of each partner and each partner's distributive share of taxable income and deductions. This is an information return and must be signed by a general partner. If an LLC is treated as a partnership, it must file Form 1065 and one of its members must sign the return. The partnership does not pay any tax on its income but "passes through" its profits or losses to its partners. Partners must include partnership items such as their distributive share of income and deductions on their personal tax returns.
http://www.start-a-business.com/inc-category/passthru.html

“Pass-through entity” means a partnership, limited liability company, S corporation, or any other class of entity the income or profits from which are given pass-through treatment under the Internal Revenue Code.
http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/718.14

[Dan Conner]

Well it is time to reread them again with the correct interpretation of "pass through". Partnerships, LLCs and S corporations are our small businesses. The small business exemptions is what they are arguing should be dropped.

Partnerships, LLCs, and S corporations are examples of businesses that have pass-through taxes.
http://www.allbusiness.com/accounting-reporting/corporate-taxes/2551-1.html

S Corporations and LLCs are taxed as if they were partnerships - no tax is due on the entity level. Each partnership engaged in a trade or business must file a return on Form 1065 showing its income, deductions, and other required information. The return shows the names and addresses of each partner and each partner's distributive share of taxable income and deductions. This is an information return and must be signed by a general partner. If an LLC is treated as a partnership, it must file Form 1065 and one of its members must sign the return. The partnership does not pay any tax on its income but "passes through" its profits or losses to its partners. Partners must include partnership items such as their distributive share of income and deductions on their personal tax returns.
http://www.start-a-business.com/inc-category/passthru.html

“Pass-through entity” means a partnership, limited liability company, S corporation, or any other class of entity the income or profits from which are given pass-through treatment under the Internal Revenue Code.
http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/718.14

The WSJ article does not address s-corps, LLC's, or partnerships, or self-employed. It only refers to large and small corporations, not special limited corporations, etc. There is no need to drag these other entities into this. They aren't addressed as part of the problem. That would have to be another discussion. I have no idea about their tax burden, nor do I care, at this time. This only applies to full-fledged died-in-the-wool (inc.) corporations. The original article saud corporations are not paying as much in corporate tax as corporations in other industrialized countries--that's correct.

[Ben Willaert]

The WSJ article does not address s-corps, LLC's, or partnerships, or self-employed. It only refers to large and small corporations, not special limited corporations, etc. There is no need to drag these other entities into this. They aren't addressed as part of the problem. That would have to be another discussion. I have no idea about their tax burden, nor do I care, at this time. This only applies to full-fledged died-in-the-wool (inc.) corporations. The original article saud corporations are not paying as much in corporate tax as corporations in other industrialized countries--that's correct.

Again:

“There is a third explanation that has received relatively little attention, yet may be the single-most important answer to the corporate tax conundrum. In the United States, federal and state business and tax laws provide firms with considerable flexibility in the legal form of organization. Rather than organize as regular corporations subject to two levels of tax (at the corporation and the shareholder levels), businesses may organize as S corporations, partnerships, or limited liability companies that are not subject to entity-level tax. Since the Tax Reform Act of 1986, which lowered the top individual income tax rate below the top corporate tax rate, the share of taxable business income earned through passthrough entities (including sole proprietorships) has increased by 75 percent from 29 percent in 1987 to 52 percent in 2004 (see table). There is a large body of empirical evidence that confirms that corporate income tax rates that are high relative to individual income tax rates reduce the share of U.S. business activity conducted in corporate form.” http://www.taxanalysts.com/www/featu...0?OpenDocument

And from your article:

"Why the disparity given the high federal rate, which rises to 39% counting state taxes? Part of the answer is that big U.S. companies have become expert at hiding profits in tax havens overseas. And many of the smaller ones simply pass through their income to owners who then report it on their personal returns.
According to one analysis, if so much corporate income hadn't moved to the personal tax rolls over the last 20 years, U.S. corporate taxes would account for 3.2% of the GDP, still a bit below the OECD average. "Usage of pass-through forms of business organization can be viewed as a form of 'self-help' corporate tax integration," writes Peter R. Merrill, a partner at PricewaterhouseCoopers."
http://www.smartmoney.com/investing/economy/High-Corporate-Tax-Rate-Is-Misleading-22463/

If small businesses paid corporate taxes we would be “a bit below the OECD average”. These articles are definitely talking about small businesses/pass-through/LLC, partnerships and S corps. Small corporations are LLCs, partnerships and S-corps as defined in my last post. So yes, it is small businesses that are being targeted.

[Dan Conner]

Again:

“There is a third explanation that has received relatively little attention, yet may be the single-most important answer to the corporate tax conundrum. In the United States, federal and state business and tax laws provide firms with considerable flexibility in the legal form of organization. Rather than organize as regular corporations subject to two levels of tax (at the corporation and the shareholder levels), businesses may organize as S corporations, partnerships, or limited liability companies that are not subject to entity-level tax. Since the Tax Reform Act of 1986, which lowered the top individual income tax rate below the top corporate tax rate, the share of taxable business income earned through passthrough entities (including sole proprietorships) has increased by 75 percent from 29 percent in 1987 to 52 percent in 2004 (see table). There is a large body of empirical evidence that confirms that corporate income tax rates that are high relative to individual income tax rates reduce the share of U.S. business activity conducted in corporate form.” http://www.taxanalysts.com/www/featu...0?OpenDocument

And from your article:

"Why the disparity given the high federal rate, which rises to 39% counting state taxes? Part of the answer is that big U.S. companies have become expert at hiding profits in tax havens overseas. And many of the smaller ones simply pass through their income to owners who then report it on their personal returns.
According to one analysis, if so much corporate income hadn't moved to the personal tax rolls over the last 20 years, U.S. corporate taxes would account for 3.2% of the GDP, still a bit below the OECD average. "Usage of pass-through forms of business organization can be viewed as a form of 'self-help' corporate tax integration," writes Peter R. Merrill, a partner at PricewaterhouseCoopers."
http://www.smartmoney.com/investing/economy/High-Corporate-Tax-Rate-Is-Misleading-22463/

If small businesses paid corporate taxes we would be “a bit below the OECD average”. These articles are definitely talking about small businesses/pass-through/LLC, partnerships and S corps. Small corporations are LLCs, partnerships and S-corps as defined in my last post. So yes, it is small businesses that are being targeted.

I don't care to discuss the subject anymore. Apparently, you are not understanding. Who cares why corporations aren't paying their share! They just aren't. At first you didn't believe me that they weren't paying their share and now you want to discuss why? They just aren't and that's a fact. I,m not interested in why. I'm only interested that they start paying their share. That should be easily rememdied. I think Obama will rememdy it. As the saying goes, "You can take that to the bank." If there are going to be any good ones of those left.

[Ben Willaert]

I don't care to discuss the subject anymore. Apparently, you are not understanding. Who cares why corporations aren't paying their share! They just aren't. At first you didn't believe me that they weren't paying their share and now you want to discuss why? They just aren't and that's a fact. I,m not interested in why. I'm only interested that they start paying their share. That should be easily rememdied. I think Obama will rememdy it. As the saying goes, "You can take that to the bank." If there are going to be any good ones of those left.

I have shown the remedies of cutting back on exemptions and write offs aren’t going to do much to the large corporations as you wish. That is why it matters to know what is actually happening. You are trying to cut off a wart on your toe at the hip, you’ll loose your whole leg.

-Take away the R&D write offs and those high paid positions will just move overseas to join their production facilities and enjoy the lower taxes elsewhere.

-Take away the small business exemptions to corporate taxes and they won’t be able to compete with the large corporations. The Wal-Marts will crush the mom and pops even more if the mom and pops have to pay corporate taxes (mom and pops are pass-through corporations which have exemption from corporate taxes now).

-The large corporations that are already paying our high corporate taxes will stay, but they will be it. The government will have to continue bailing them out since they truly will be our only source of employment.

[Dan Conner]

I have shown the remedies of cutting back on exemptions and write offs aren’t going to do much to the large corporations as you wish. That is why it matters to know what is actually happening. You are trying to cut off a wart on your toe at the hip, you’ll loose your whole leg.

-Take away the R&D write offs and those high paid positions will just move overseas to join their production facilities and enjoy the lower taxes elsewhere.

-Take away the small business exemptions to corporate taxes and they won’t be able to compete with the large corporations. The Wal-Marts will crush the mom and pops even more if the mom and pops have to pay corporate taxes (mom and pops are pass-through corporations which have exemption from corporate taxes now).

-The large corporations that are already paying our high corporate taxes will stay, but they will be it. The government will have to continue bailing them out since they truly will be our only source of employment.

Ben--

I'm done discussing this subject with you. I still don't think you understand. At this point I don't think you understand the differences between corporation and self-employment. I tried my best to explain, but I'm freash out of ideas for doing that better. You don't understand what I've said.

[Liz Ratcliff]

I agree that Obama's speech was exactly what needed to be said. I thought Jindal's speech seemed extremely short sighted and negative for the sake of opposition. And in hindsight it was partially manufactured to fit the Republican agenda. If I recall from my schooling and research it was the New Deal that pulled this country out of the Great Depression. Quite frankly I am tired of socialism being villified to promote an agenda of unchecked greed and selfishness. While I am not promoting a socialist nation, I do feel that there are some positive aspects of socialism. In fact most of the people in this country benefit from socialistic programs - Medicare, Social Security, police protection, local fire departments, etc to name some of the big ones. In order for this country to prosper, we need to show a little compassion for our neighbors and pull together. Rugged individualism and capitalism, while often admirable, have been exploited to tap into our most self serving instincts. But we are better than that. Materialism doesn't offer fulfillment, love does. So instead of resenting your struggling neighbor threatened with foreclosure, why not try to help? Don't be bitter because your neighbor might be "bailed out". Be grateful that you don't have to be bailed out. If your neighbor gets to keep his house, your property value won't take a nosedive. When others prosper, we all do. Before we judge others, we need to take responsibility for our own lives. None of us is perfect, but if we truly unite, we will form a more perfect union. That is the kind of message I get from Obama. I don't know how this will all shake out, but refusing to take care of our citizens doesn't seem like a path to success. How does that old saying go from Benjamin Franklin... The Lord helps those who help their brothers?? :)

[Ben Willaert]

That is one of the problems with socialism. When someone sees their neighbor get “bailed out” from purchasing a house they couldn’t afford in the first place, they get mad. They want to know what is in it for them for making the right decisions. The next time they have an important decision, caution may go to the wind because they want to be “bailed out” too. This form of socialism rewards poor decisions.

In capitalism it is easier to accept the neighbor up the street with the house twice the value of yours; most of the time you know they earned it. Part of capitalism is knowing how to live within your means. Overcoming mistakes can be a life changing and life improving experience. Capitalism rewards making the right decisions.

The best way we can help our brothers and sisters is to be there for them. Help the neighbor that had the house they couldn’t afford understand how to live within their means. Don't judge them, but we need to acknowledge our mistakes or we are destined to repeat them. We all make mistakes, it doesn't make us a bad person.

Volunteer or give to charity; this hands on approach will reward us with much more compassion then simply allowing our government to take care of everyone for us. When the government does something for us, we get lazy and stop doing it for ourselves.

[Dan Conner]

I agree that Obama's speech was exactly what needed to be said. I thought Jindal's speech seemed extremely short sighted and negative for the sake of opposition. And in hindsight it was partially manufactured to fit the Republican agenda. If I recall from my schooling and research it was the New Deal that pulled this country out of the Great Depression. Quite frankly I am tired of socialism being villified to promote an agenda of unchecked greed and selfishness. While I am not promoting a socialist nation, I do feel that there are some positive aspects of socialism. In fact most of the people in this country benefit from socialistic programs - Medicare, Social Security, police protection, local fire departments, etc to name some of the big ones. In order for this country to prosper, we need to show a little compassion for our neighbors and pull together. Rugged individualism and capitalism, while often admirable, have been exploited to tap into our most self serving instincts. But we are better than that. Materialism doesn't offer fulfillment, love does. So instead of resenting your struggling neighbor threatened with foreclosure, why not try to help? Don't be bitter because your neighbor might be "bailed out". Be grateful that you don't have to be bailed out. If your neighbor gets to keep his house, your property value won't take a nosedive. When others prosper, we all do. Before we judge others, we need to take responsibility for our own lives. None of us is perfect, but if we truly unite, we will form a more perfect union. That is the kind of message I get from Obama. I don't know how this will all shake out, but refusing to take care of our citizens doesn't seem like a path to success. How does that old saying go from Benjamin Franklin... The Lord helps those who help their brothers?? :)

Great to have you aboard Liz. I totally agree with you on everything you say here. Hopefully, you don't feel put upon by some of the posts here. I'll try to support you.

[Dan Conner]

That is one of the problems with socialism. When someone sees their neighbor get “bailed out” from purchasing a house they couldn’t afford in the first place, they get mad. They want to know what is in it for them for making the right decisions. The next time they have an important decision, caution may go to the wind because they want to be “bailed out” too. This form of socialism rewards poor decisions.

In capitalism it is easier to accept the neighbor up the street with the house twice the value of yours; most of the time you know they earned it. Part of capitalism is knowing how to live within your means. Overcoming mistakes can be a life changing and life improving experience. Capitalism rewards making the right decisions.

The best way we can help our brothers and sisters is to be there for them. Help the neighbor that had the house they couldn’t afford understand how to live within their means. Don't judge them, but we need to acknowledge our mistakes or we are destined to repeat them. We all make mistakes, it doesn't make us a bad person.

Volunteer or give to charity; this hands on approach will reward us with much more compassion then simply allowing our government to take care of everyone for us. When the government does something for us, we get lazy and stop doing it for ourselves.

I would like you to point out how it is in capitalism it is easier to accept someone with a nicer home up the street that defaulted. Show me evidence of this. I really disagree. In fact, much of the complaining happening today is from people complaining about people buying houses "over their head" and then not wanting to help them for making a poor decision. In fact, you have previously stated the same.

Capitalism doesn't always reward right decisions. People are laid off that continue to make good decisions. The employer might have made bad decisions... Giving to charity doesn't come close to making up the difference for helping people. Charity is a spit in the ocean helping people needing help. Government is the only entity with the resources to give that much help. Government payments to people are probably 30-50 times what is given in charity. The best way I can explain it is this...Despite government and charity, there is still a tremendous unmet need for people. Removing government help for people will make the problems far far worse. I would also venture a guess that people who don't want to pay taxes to help people are also the ones who don't give to help people.

It is totally bunk that people better accept someone with a better house because you are a capitalist? Baloney. Please show me a reference for that because I know that is only a figment of someone's imagination. This flies in the face of a long held tenet of capitalism...that it is cold, unforgiving, greedy, and dispassionate. It is on the opposite end of the scale from compassion. I can show you references explaining that.

Making the statement that people get lazy when government does things for us is more bunk. As I previously said. The US is now only in the middle of the pack for productivity and standard of living. All the industrialized nations ahead of us have governments that do far more for the people than ours. These people can't be too lazy, they're beating the pants off us. I think people have gotten too lazy in the US because our achievements, innovation, and craftsmanship have all declined. Look at the industries that have moved to other countries. Look at Japan and Germany's automotive innovations and quality. We are way behind. We have no textile industry left, much of our steel industry has left, we have been beat out in automobile manufacturing, and on and on. And, we are being beat out by countries that do more for its people.

Volunteering is great, but not close to the sum of what is needed. I think government is going to be doing more because the American people want it to. So, I think it is silly to debate it any longer. The debate was settled in the 2008 election. Now it's Obama's turn. I know we will be far better for it.

[Ben Willaert]

So you are telling me you are resentful of intelligent, hard working individuals that earn and then spend more money then you? I have a house across the street from me that is at least 4 times the value of mine. I can appreciate their right to enjoy their money because they have earned it. It is within my means to work hard and reap the same benefits as them. Our capitalist country makes that possible. People that bought houses they can't afford don't have a right to stay in them. The government can help them get back on their feet in a home they can afford. There is a big difference between government help and the government dependence you preach.

You say all the other countries already out produce us, yet you want to eliminate write offs and small business tax exemptions, making our industries even less competitive on the global market? That is a recipe for disaster. I suppose instead of working and producing anything, we could allow all our businesses to move to other countries and then place tariffs on all imports so the government can provide us a living.

[Dan Conner]

So you are telling me you are resentful of intelligent, hard working individuals that earn and then spend more money then you? I have a house across the street from me that is at least 4 times the value of mine. I can appreciate their right to enjoy their money because they have earned it. It is within my means to work hard and reap the same benefits as them. Our capitalist country makes that possible. People that bought houses they can't afford don't have a right to stay in them. The government can help them get back on their feet in a home they can afford. There is a big difference between government help and the government dependence you preach.

You say all the other countries already out produce us, yet you want to eliminate write offs and small business tax exemptions, making our industries even less competitive on the global market? That is a recipe for disaster. I suppose instead of working and producing anything, we could allow all our businesses to move to other countries and then place tariffs on all imports so the government can provide us a living.
Well, I'm attaching an earlier quote from you on another thread:"There is quite a cultural gap between us and Scandinavia. Like I suggested in one of my first posts, socialistic countries have citizens that put society first. Our citizens put themselves first. So either we would have to change or we will run our government into the ground demanding it make every concession for each of us. JFK said, “Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country”, but this last election was won on the premise of, how can we change our country to help you."

You've stated the obvious for you. You want to put yourself first, NOT THE COUNTRY. I discerned from your prior posts that you don't have great compassion for people with failed mortgages. We will never agree based on that. Also, I asked on your prior post to substantiate some of your claims. You still haven't done that. I don't intend to respond to your future posts until you reduce your baseless claims or prove them. You make wild assumptions and use fiction books as you encyclopedia. Hardly, a sound philosophical foundation. Even your most fundamental claim is unsubstantiated. I not going to refute fiction with facts.

[Liz Ratcliff]

Speaking for myself, I am certainly not resentful of those that make more money than me - good for them. Other than being able to meet my financial obligations, money really isn't that important to me. I find fulfillment in other ways, and I suspect that is a common trend these days. But I do frown on the philosophy that the wealthy are more worthy of our respect and admiration. I honestly question the future of this country or any country that puts corporations and money before the well being of others. "Laziness" is a contrived catch all to rationalize the lack of compassion and support of those less fortunate. I believe that most of middle America and those below the middle income bracket are quite the opposite of lazy. If anything, I would consider the bank, mortgage, and insurance CEO's that got us into this mess the lazy, self indulgent ones. Were they hard at work while this crisis was unfolding? Or were they redesigning their offices with $14K waste bins, flying to spa retreats in corporate jets, or who knows what else? If you take a look at the wealthy elite, I think you will see far more laziness and sense of entitlement than with the rest of us being trickled on... Another point I would make... France is considered somewhat socialist, but there is still plenty of opportunity to become wealthy. Norway and Sweden have some of the highest standards of living. For some reason, the word socialism seems to evoke a red scare when the word is uttered. The wealthy elite have done a fine job of scaring the American public into associating anything socialistic with something bad - because it will cut into their profits. Why share if you don't have to? That mentality, over the long run, never results in success. We are now realizing that. When the government is run by the people and for the people, it is most effective. The past 8 years it has been run by the wealthy elite and for the wealthy elite. It is time to take our country back, and Obama is on the right track. People are kidding themselves if they think universal healthcare and slightly higher taxes for the top 5%, are going to turn us into a socialist nation. We are a republic, and giving healthcare to all is a human right that I would argue is necessary to have a thriving republic. Our entire point of arguement is based on money. The accumulation of large amounts of money has been worshipped and elevated to an obscene level. We have become so obsessed with it that while we are running the rat race, real living is passing us by. Our focus has been taken off of the meaningful things in life and replaced with materialism on steriods. I feel that the only way we are going to pull ourselves out of this mess is to prop up the lower and middle class so everyone has a chance to prosper (i.e. have the necessities of life) - without that, America as we know it is in serious jeopardy.

[Bob Jentges]

I agree that Obama's speech was exactly what needed to be said. I thought Jindal's speech seemed extremely short sighted and negative for the sake of opposition. And in hindsight it was partially manufactured to fit the Republican agenda. If I recall from my schooling and research it was the New Deal that pulled this country out of the Great Depression. Quite frankly I am tired of socialism being villified to promote an agenda of unchecked greed and selfishness. While I am not promoting a socialist nation, I do feel that there are some positive aspects of socialism. In fact most of the people in this country benefit from socialistic programs - Medicare, Social Security, police protection, local fire departments, etc to name some of the big ones. In order for this country to prosper, we need to show a little compassion for our neighbors and pull together. Rugged individualism and capitalism, while often admirable, have been exploited to tap into our most self serving instincts. But we are better than that. Materialism doesn't offer fulfillment, love does. So instead of resenting your struggling neighbor threatened with foreclosure, why not try to help? Don't be bitter because your neighbor might be "bailed out". Be grateful that you don't have to be bailed out. If your neighbor gets to keep his house, your property value won't take a nosedive. When others prosper, we all do. Before we judge others, we need to take responsibility for our own lives. None of us is perfect, but if we truly unite, we will form a more perfect union. That is the kind of message I get from Obama. I don't know how this will all shake out, but refusing to take care of our citizens doesn't seem like a path to success. How does that old saying go from Benjamin Franklin... The Lord helps those who help their brothers?? :)

I too welcome you to the discussion, Liz. But I think there is an interesting debate among economists as to whether FDR's "New Deal pulled this country out of the Great Depression". Some say it was WWII, and that is not meant to be intrupted that I, in any way shape or form, promote war.

[Dan Conner]

Speaking for myself, I am certainly not resentful of those that make more money than me - good for them. Other than being able to meet my financial obligations, money really isn't that important to me. I find fulfillment in other ways, and I suspect that is a common trend these days. But I do frown on the philosophy that the wealthy are more worthy of our respect and admiration. I honestly question the future of this country or any country that puts corporations and money before the well being of others. "Laziness" is a contrived catch all to rationalize the lack of compassion and support of those less fortunate. I believe that most of middle America and those below the middle income bracket are quite the opposite of lazy. If anything, I would consider the bank, mortgage, and insurance CEO's that got us into this mess the lazy, self indulgent ones. Were they hard at work while this crisis was unfolding? Or were they redesigning their offices with $14K waste bins, flying to spa retreats in corporate jets, or who knows what else? If you take a look at the wealthy elite, I think you will see far more laziness and sense of entitlement than with the rest of us being trickled on... Another point I would make... France is considered somewhat socialist, but there is still plenty of opportunity to become wealthy. Norway and Sweden have some of the highest standards of living. For some reason, the word socialism seems to evoke a red scare when the word is uttered. The wealthy elite have done a fine job of scaring the American public into associating anything socialistic with something bad - because it will cut into their profits. Why share if you don't have to? That mentality, over the long run, never results in success. We are now realizing that. When the government is run by the people and for the people, it is most effective. The past 8 years it has been run by the wealthy elite and for the wealthy elite. It is time to take our country back, and Obama is on the right track. People are kidding themselves if they think universal healthcare and slightly higher taxes for the top 5%, are going to turn us into a socialist nation. We are a republic, and giving healthcare to all is a human right that I would argue is necessary to have a thriving republic. Our entire point of arguement is based on money. The accumulation of large amounts of money has been worshipped and elevated to an obscene level. We have become so obsessed with it that while we are running the rat race, real living is passing us by. Our focus has been taken off of the meaningful things in life and replaced with materialism on steriods. I feel that the only way we are going to pull ourselves out of this mess is to prop up the lower and middle class so everyone has a chance to prosper (i.e. have the necessities of life) - without that, America as we know it is in serious jeopardy.

Liz--

I couldn't have said it better. We are far too concerned about money, making us all too selfish. I'm glad to see there is someone on this site who believes in elevating the less fortunate among us, instead of letting them starve to death in some kind of anonymous oblivion. I think we all need lessons in sharing and compassion.

[Dan Conner]

I too welcome you to the discussion, Liz. But I think there is an interesting debate among economists as to whether FDR's "New Deal pulled this country out of the Great Depression". Some say it was WWII, and that is not meant to be intrupted that I, in any way shape or form, promote war.

I agree with you, WWII did get us out of the Great Depression, but the New Deal was enormously valuable sustaining our people during the Great Depression. Without it, many would have perished from starvation, disease, and general pestilance. So, the New Deal was important at maintaing us at a minimal subsistence level until the really big spending came about.

[Ben Willaert]

Well, I'm attaching an earlier quote from you on another thread:"There is quite a cultural gap between us and Scandinavia. Like I suggested in one of my first posts, socialistic countries have citizens that put society first. Our citizens put themselves first. So either we would have to change or we will run our government into the ground demanding it make every concession for each of us. JFK said, “Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country”, but this last election was won on the premise of, how can we change our country to help you."

You've stated the obvious for you. You want to put yourself first, NOT THE COUNTRY. I discerned from your prior posts that you don't have great compassion for people with failed mortgages. We will never agree based on that. Also, I asked on your prior post to substantiate some of your claims. You still haven't done that. I don't intend to respond to your future posts until you reduce your baseless claims or prove them. You make wild assumptions and use fiction books as you encyclopedia. Hardly, a sound philosophical foundation. Even your most fundamental claim is unsubstantiated. I not going to refute fiction with facts.

This last election shows the majority of us (U.S. citizens) put ourselves first. I live by the words of JFK. I did not vote for Obama because I do not agree with the selfish attitude that the government needs to take care of me. There is also something to be said that we expect the best of everything. I do expect the best, but I understand I have to achieve it. Socialism provides everyone with a comfortable living. Not the best. It would be hard for most Americans to settle for a comfortable living and would demand the government provide the best living under socialism. Socialism can not afford a high standard of living for all.

I do have compassion for the people with failed mortgages. They made mistakes and they need help getting back on their feet. We have a very unique situation because of the oversupply of houses. Usually it would be best just to help these people get into homes they can afford, but because of our current oversupply it is necessary to renegotiate and keep them in those houses for the good of the housing market too. With that, we can’t forget to acknowledge the mistakes that were made though. Otherwise those mistakes will be repeated. I don’t resent them or anyone, we all make mistakes. Learning from those mistakes is the important part.

Looking back, I have been the one doing all the leg work researching and citing. You just say I am wrong and don’t understand you. Here is your question:
“would like you to point out how it is in capitalism it is easier to accept someone with a nicer home up the street that defaulted. Show me evidence of this. I really disagree.”
I don’t have anything to cite because capitalism doesn’t make it easier to accept someone that defaulted on their home. I said:
“In capitalism it is easier to accept the neighbor up the street with the house twice the value of yours; most of the time you know they earned it.”
Maybe I am speaking for myself when I say I am happy for the success of others. I’m not going to cite anything on that.

[Liz Ratcliff]

I agree with you, WWII did get us out of the Great Depression, but the New Deal was enormously valuable sustaining our people during the Great Depression. Without it, many would have perished from starvation, disease, and general pestilance. So, the New Deal was important at maintaing us at a minimal subsistence level until the really big spending came about.


I would agree with that. Here is what Paul Krugman, Nobel laureate, says - the economy improved after the New Deal, and that it was FDR's attempt to balance the budget in 1937 (a move favored now by many conservatives) that then cut into that progress.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3yAyQV8gOjo&eurl=

[Liz Ratcliff]

This last election shows the majority of us (U.S. citizens) put ourselves first. I live by the words of JFK. I did not vote for Obama because I do not agree with the selfish attitude that the government needs to take care of me. There is also something to be said that we expect the best of everything. I do expect the best, but I understand I have to achieve it. Socialism provides everyone with a comfortable living. Not the best. It would be hard for most Americans to settle for a comfortable living and would demand the government provide the best living under socialism. Socialism can not afford a high standard of living for all.

I do have compassion for the people with failed mortgages. They made mistakes and they need help getting back on their feet. We have a very unique situation because of the oversupply of houses. Usually it would be best just to help these people get into homes they can afford, but because of our current oversupply it is necessary to renegotiate and keep them in those houses for the good of the housing market too. With that, we can’t forget to acknowledge the mistakes that were made though. Otherwise those mistakes will be repeated. I don’t resent them or anyone, we all make mistakes. Learning from those mistakes is the important part.

Looking back, I have been the one doing all the leg work researching and citing. You just say I am wrong and don’t understand you. Here is your question:
“would like you to point out how it is in capitalism it is easier to accept someone with a nicer home up the street that defaulted. Show me evidence of this. I really disagree.”
I don’t have anything to cite because capitalism doesn’t make it easier to accept someone that defaulted on their home. I said:
“In capitalism it is easier to accept the neighbor up the street with the house twice the value of yours; most of the time you know they earned it.”
Maybe I am speaking for myself when I say I am happy for the success of others. I’m not going to cite anything on that.

I respectfully disagree with your first statement. Most that voted for Obama favor healtcare for all, ending the war in Iraq, and the survival of our country. How would that be selfish? I don't understand. I didn't buy into that "Country First" spin the Repubs were using. So far, their "leader", Mr. Limbaugh has done nothing to promote ideas or policies that would put country first. He just spews hate and narcissism. From what I gather the republican party would like to continue with the Bush economic policies and/or add more tax cuts for the rich and cutting essential services... yikes! If I am wrong, please enlighten me. I have not heard much in terms of ideas from them. As far as government "taking care" of us... we all contribute so we should all benefit. If government isn't there for the people, then why is it there at all? Looking at history, governments that weren't in existence for the benefit of its people usually oppressed them for the benefit of its ruling class.

You said "socialism can not afford a high standard of living for all" - I would tell you to check into Norway and Sweden among other countries with higher standards of living than ours... they kill that theory.

You said "Socialism provides everyone with a comfortable living. Not the best. It would be hard for most Americans to settle for a comfortable living and would demand the government provide the best living under socialism." - I disagree - many Americans don't have the best. And are we so spoiled that we have to have the "best", whatever that is, at the expense of others having nothing? That to me seems selfish, no offense. Again, we are distracted with materialism and forgetting the essence of a meaningful, happy life for all.

You said "I do have compassion for the people with failed mortgages. They made mistakes and they need help getting back on their feet. We have a very unique situation because of the oversupply of houses. Usually it would be best just to help these people get into homes they can afford, but because of our current oversupply it is necessary to renegotiate and keep them in those houses for the good of the housing market too. With that, we can’t forget to acknowledge the mistakes that were made though. Otherwise those mistakes will be repeated. I don’t resent them or anyone, we all make mistakes. Learning from those mistakes is the important part." - I don't necessarily disagree with this part. We need to help but also teach and promote responsibility.

[Dan Conner]

I respectfully disagree with your first statement. Most that voted for Obama favor healtcare for all, ending the war in Iraq, and the survival of our country. How would that be selfish? I don't understand. I didn't buy into that "Country First" spin the Repubs were using. So far, their "leader", Mr. Limbaugh has done nothing to promote ideas or policies that would put country first. He just spews hate and narcissism. From what I gather the republican party would like to continue with the Bush economic policies and/or add more tax cuts for the rich and cutting essential services... yikes! If I am wrong, please enlighten me. I have not heard much in terms of ideas from them. As far as government "taking care" of us... we all contribute so we should all benefit. If government isn't there for the people, then why is it there at all? Looking at history, governments that weren't in existence for the benefit of its people usually oppressed them for the benefit of its ruling class.

You said "socialism can not afford a high standard of living for all" - I would tell you to check into Norway and Sweden among other countries with higher standards of living than ours... they kill that theory.

You said "Socialism provides everyone with a comfortable living. Not the best. It would be hard for most Americans to settle for a comfortable living and would demand the government provide the best living under socialism." - I disagree - many Americans don't have the best. And are we so spoiled that we have to have the "best", whatever that is, at the expense of others having nothing? That to me seems selfish, no offense. Again, we are distracted with materialism and forgetting the essence of a meaningful, happy life for all.

You said "I do have compassion for the people with failed mortgages. They made mistakes and they need help getting back on their feet. We have a very unique situation because of the oversupply of houses. Usually it would be best just to help these people get into homes they can afford, but because of our current oversupply it is necessary to renegotiate and keep them in those houses for the good of the housing market too. With that, we can’t forget to acknowledge the mistakes that were made though. Otherwise those mistakes will be repeated. I don’t resent them or anyone, we all make mistakes. Learning from those mistakes is the important part." - I don't necessarily disagree with this part. We need to help but also teach and promote responsibility.


Right on Liz!!

[Dan Conner]

I would agree with that. Here is what Paul Krugman, Nobel laureate, says - the economy improved after the New Deal, and that it was FDR's attempt to balance the budget in 1937 (a move favored now by many conservatives) that then cut into that progress.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3yAyQV8gOjo&eurl=

OK, I stand corrected. Krugman would surely know.

[Ben Willaert]

I respectfully disagree with your first statement. Most that voted for Obama favor healtcare for all, ending the war in Iraq, and the survival of our country. How would that be selfish? I don't understand. I didn't buy into that "Country First" spin the Repubs were using. So far, their "leader", Mr. Limbaugh has done nothing to promote ideas or policies that would put country first. He just spews hate and narcissism. From what I gather the republican party would like to continue with the Bush economic policies and/or add more tax cuts for the rich and cutting essential services... yikes! If I am wrong, please enlighten me. I have not heard much in terms of ideas from them. As far as government "taking care" of us... we all contribute so we should all benefit. If government isn't there for the people, then why is it there at all? Looking at history, governments that weren't in existence for the benefit of its people usually oppressed them for the benefit of its ruling class.

You said "socialism can not afford a high standard of living for all" - I would tell you to check into Norway and Sweden among other countries with higher standards of living than ours... they kill that theory.

You said "Socialism provides everyone with a comfortable living. Not the best. It would be hard for most Americans to settle for a comfortable living and would demand the government provide the best living under socialism." - I disagree - many Americans don't have the best. And are we so spoiled that we have to have the "best", whatever that is, at the expense of others having nothing? That to me seems selfish, no offense. Again, we are distracted with materialism and forgetting the essence of a meaningful, happy life for all.

You said "I do have compassion for the people with failed mortgages. They made mistakes and they need help getting back on their feet. We have a very unique situation because of the oversupply of houses. Usually it would be best just to help these people get into homes they can afford, but because of our current oversupply it is necessary to renegotiate and keep them in those houses for the good of the housing market too. With that, we can’t forget to acknowledge the mistakes that were made though. Otherwise those mistakes will be repeated. I don’t resent them or anyone, we all make mistakes. Learning from those mistakes is the important part." - I don't necessarily disagree with this part. We need to help but also teach and promote responsibility.

Mr. Limbaugh is a sensational shock jock. He is in the same boat as Howard Stern. I do not agree with what he says, nor many times what the Republican party says.

The selfishness is in the people that voted for Obama out of the hope that he will help them financially. I can’t count how many people told me Obama’s stimulus check was going to by far exceed the one Bush sent us. A lot of people were also sweating their mortgage payments and hoping he would bring relief. I have no problem with the people that voted for Obama because they truly believe a more socialist agenda is better for this nation. I disagree. Capitalism is what made this country great. We started from nothing but a few colonies and became a world power. Sure, we are in a hic up right now, so is the whole world. That doesn’t mean we should abandon what got us here after we get past this.

There are other discussions on my concern of government health care. In short, I fear we would loose the research and development that keeps us on the cutting edge of medicine.

[Liz Ratcliff]

Mr. Limbaugh is a sensational shock jock. He is in the same boat as Howard Stern. I do not agree with what he says, nor many times what the Republican party says.

The selfishness is in the people that voted for Obama out of the hope that he will help them financially. I can’t count how many people told me Obama’s stimulus check was going to by far exceed the one Bush sent us. A lot of people were also sweating their mortgage payments and hoping he would bring relief. I have no problem with the people that voted for Obama because they truly believe a more socialist agenda is better for this nation. I disagree. Capitalism is what made this country great. We started from nothing but a few colonies and became a world power. Sure, we are in a hic up right now, so is the whole world. That doesn’t mean we should abandon what got us here after we get past this.

There are other discussions on my concern of government health care. In short, I fear we would loose the research and development that keeps us on the cutting edge of medicine.

I am relieved that you aren't a supporter of Rush. :) I can't speak to the motives of the people you spoke to that voted for Obama. All I can say is that I believe he was voted in for change, and yes, help for all. If that is selfish, guilty as charged.

I don't claim capitalism is a bad thing. BUT unregulated capitalism hasn't proven to be a success story. Because our country is so large and we are entangled in a global economy, I believe it is necessary to have some socialist policies. Can't we have capitalism (regulated) with some socialist policies? Does it have to be all or nothing? Is universal health going to ruin the market? I think it would only enhance it. And to say that universal health would ruin innovation is bunk. Here is a link to an article that finds France ranked the best in preventable death and the US the worst.

http://www.medicineonline.com/news/12/10801/France-best-U-S-worst-in-preventable-death-ranking.html

Medicine and capitalism don't mix. In France and other socialist countries, doctors are rewarded for healthy patients. In the US, doctors make more money the more doctor visits, tests, etc. It stands to reason that the more their patients return (i.e. remain unhealthy), the more money they make. If we were really innovative, we would be looking at preventative programs and holistic health, not more drugs that are in many cases placebos in disguise or have harmful side effects that create the need for even more drugs to counter them. Western medicine typically treats the symptoms and not the whole person. That being said, western medicine certainly has its place and is necessary AND employs many FINE, CARING doctors, but it is hardly perfect. And I passionately believe that medicine and capitalism is a dangerous mix. To me, it enables the lack of compassion and support that our current capitalistic ways have embodied, letting many of the less fortunate fall by the wayside. Again, showing money is more important than human lives.

[Liz Ratcliff]

Check this link - The World Health Organization's ranking
of the world's health systems.

France is #1
US is #37

http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html

[Dan Conner]

Mr. Limbaugh is a sensational shock jock. He is in the same boat as Howard Stern. I do not agree with what he says, nor many times what the Republican party says.

The selfishness is in the people that voted for Obama out of the hope that he will help them financially. I can’t count how many people told me Obama’s stimulus check was going to by far exceed the one Bush sent us. A lot of people were also sweating their mortgage payments and hoping he would bring relief. I have no problem with the people that voted for Obama because they truly believe a more socialist agenda is better for this nation. I disagree. Capitalism is what made this country great. We started from nothing but a few colonies and became a world power. Sure, we are in a hic up right now, so is the whole world. That doesn’t mean we should abandon what got us here after we get past this.

There are other discussions on my concern of government health care. In short, I fear we would loose the research and development that keeps us on the cutting edge of medicine.

Frankly, I am tiring of you repetitive claim that capitalism best deals with medical innovation. You keep saying it, but that doesn't make it any more correct. I would like to direct you to a website that points out otherwise:

http://www.grahamazon.com/over/2007/11/medical-innovation-in-the-us/

In that article it states:

"Just like he says in the article, I’ve yet to see an innovator in the academic sector (where much of innovation begins) be driven by profit. It’s driven by wanting to alleviate suffering, to find answers to questions, to let curiosity and discovery flourish. If you didn’t know, the invention of the CT scanner is shared between the US and UK. France was the first to discover the HIV virus."

You forget that there are other motivators other than money. That's the terrible selfish truth about capitalism. It values money above all else, and frequently those motivations are more destructive than helpful or innovative. I don't want doctors who only work for the money. I want doctors who want to alleviate suffering. Europe leads in stem cell, cloning, and cell research. In this link Canada is leading in a new xray technology: http://www.wd.gc.ca/eng/77_3255.asp.

You constantly use hyperbole when extolling the virtues of medical innovation. The above are but just a few examples showing we are not. In addition, the US had its lead in automotive innovation taken away a long time ago. There are too many industries where we have lost out to other more competitive "socialist leaning" countries. I think you can stop slapping yourself on the back about our great creative country, we are beginning to get our proverbial capitalist butts kicked.

Please refrain from invoking sweeping unsupported capitalist claims without backing them up with some evidence. Otherwise, it's meaningless chatter. We are in a sorry state, if the only thing that motivates anyone or anything in our country is money and greed. At least I'm glad for those doctors that demonstrate concern for humanity over pocketbook. A good illustration of that caring is Doctors Without Borders. They sure aren't doing what they do for money and neither should you.

[Dan Conner]

I would like to refer Ben, and Bob for that matter, to the 3/4/09 editorial in The Free Press, entitled, "Economic Ignorance Has Price" and a syndicated column written by E.J Dionne, from the Washington Post. I think both pieces point out the importance of becoming educated about our crisis and Dionne's column about a need to more heavily tax the rich. They have disproportionately reaped economic rewards over nearly the last 30 years. While I think the paper was rather kind to banks heavily dealing in credit swap defaults, overall their point is well taken.

I think the "creativeness" of capitalism turned into a way for rich and powerful Wall Street bokers, bankers, and insurers to extravagantly profit from a financial contrivance that has brought our economy to its knees. Homeowners/buyers didn't do this, the three Wall Street culprits above did. It's not like homebuyers haven't been denied credit before. It was the frenzy of financial institutions to profit on "junk" that drove the mortgage market.

Wall Street titans and CEO's are paid handsomely to properly manage their banks and the banking system. They grossly failed. A common worker on the assembly line would have been responsible and accountable for such an action by being fired. Wall Street bigshots need to be accountable by being fired, as well. In fact, the executives and board of directors who have profited from the bad practices need to be sued for recovery of their ill-gotten gains. Then they can say they are responsible. They sure aren't now.

I say this because I just heard the news that extravgantly paid executives from Countrywide Finance, that started this economic tumble, are now buying up many of their former rotten mortgages, at fire sale prices, to profit twice off the same product. I say enough is enough.

[Ben Willaert]

I forgot to clarify my lazy comment. I wasn’t saying low class or middle class people are lazy. I was saying government programs that provide for us can make us lazy. An example of this was the discussion Mr. Conner and I had about social security. In my own life I have been lazy towards saving for a retirement. Earlier in life I figured the government had me covered. Now I realize they provide a base but I have to do something for myself. Unfortunately I don’t have any wiggle room right now to get started.

As for our health care status, I posted this on another thread: “Spend a day over in Rochester and I wonder how many leaders you will see from those countries. From my experience with arthritis I see the U.S. having the most cutting edge medications. The biologics like Enbrel are the best in the world, but cost $1600 a month. That is why 2/3 of all sales are here in the U.S., I’m sure socialist countries deny their citizens from using them.”

Our capitalist system develops and innovates the best drugs in the world. The rest of the world benefits from us by using those drugs after they can be made generic. Where we fall behind other countries in health care is preventative medicine. Only recently has our health care insurance companies realized the profit they can make by encouraging preventative health care. Soon we will have the best drugs and the best preventative health care. We just need to keep our motivation. I don’t think government health care can do that.

The way I see it, socialism is like a zoo. Socialistic governments provide “habitats” for their citizens to feel comfortable in. Capitalism is living in the wild, survival of the fittest. Our potential in the wild is much higher. Fortunately like Liz pointed out we have had a mixed economy for some time now. It’s like having veterinarians in the wild. When we get injured they are there to help us. I think our balance has been good. Like I said, we became a world power. I don’t want to throw out the baby with the bath water. Don’t forget the advancements our country has made in the last 200 years, because of this current down turn.

[Ben Willaert]

I would like to refer Ben, and Bob for that matter, to the 3/4/09 editorial in The Free Press, entitled, "Economic Ignorance Has Price" and a syndicated column written by E.J Dionne, from the Washington Post. I think both pieces point out the importance of becoming educated about our crisis and Dionne's column about a need to more heavily tax the rich. They have disproportionately reaped economic rewards over nearly the last 30 years. While I think the paper was rather kind to banks heavily dealing in credit swap defaults, overall their point is well taken.

I think the "creativeness" of capitalism turned into a way for rich and powerful Wall Street bokers, bankers, and insurers to extravagantly profit from a financial contrivance that has brought our economy to its knees. Homeowners/buyers didn't do this, the three Wall Street culprits above did. It's not like homebuyers haven't been denied credit before. It was the frenzy of financial institutions to profit on "junk" that drove the mortgage market.

Wall Street titans and CEO's are paid handsomely to properly manage their banks and the banking system. They grossly failed. A common worker on the assembly line would have been responsible and accountable for such an action by being fired. Wall Street bigshots need to be accountable by being fired, as well. In fact, the executives and board of directors who have profited from the bad practices need to be sued for recovery of their ill-gotten gains. Then they can say they are responsible. They sure aren't now.

I say this because I just heard the news that extravgantly paid executives from Countrywide Finance, that started this economic tumble, are now buying up many of their former rotten mortgages, at fire sale prices, to profit twice off the same product. I say enough is enough.

Is there anything else in your world view besides evil rich people? Have you bought a house lately? Three years ago I was approved for a $350,000 mortgage. I was smarter then that. I built much smaller and making that payment isn’t exactly easy. How many people have racked up irresponsible credit card bills? Could that be part of the reason we aren’t consuming? We are still paying off the things we bought five years ago.

I think it comes down to what you think of your fellow citizens. Are they idiots that can’t learn and overcome their mistakes? If so, then we need socialism to survive. I like to look at the potential everyone has and don't want to limit that. I think my fellow citizens and I are better then we are right now and we can bounce back with a little help.

[Liz Ratcliff]

I forgot to clarify my lazy comment. I wasn’t saying low class or middle class people are lazy. I was saying government programs that provide for us can make us lazy. An example of this was the discussion Mr. Conner and I had about social security. In my own life I have been lazy towards saving for a retirement. Earlier in life I figured the government had me covered. Now I realize they provide a base but I have to do something for myself. Unfortunately I don’t have any wiggle room right now to get started.

As for our health care status, I posted this on another thread: “Spend a day over in Rochester and I wonder how many leaders you will see from those countries. From my experience with arthritis I see the U.S. having the most cutting edge medications. The biologics like Enbrel are the best in the world, but cost $1600 a month. That is why 2/3 of all sales are here in the U.S., I’m sure socialist countries deny their citizens from using them.”

Our capitalist system develops and innovates the best drugs in the world. The rest of the world benefits from us by using those drugs after they can be made generic. Where we fall behind other countries in health care is preventative medicine. Only recently has our health care insurance companies realized the profit they can make by encouraging preventative health care. Soon we will have the best drugs and the best preventative health care. We just need to keep our motivation. I don’t think government health care can do that.

The way I see it, socialism is like a zoo. Socialistic governments provide “habitats” for their citizens to feel comfortable in. Capitalism is living in the wild, survival of the fittest. Our potential in the wild is much higher. Fortunately like Liz pointed out we have had a mixed economy for some time now. It’s like having veterinarians in the wild. When we get injured they are there to help us. I think our balance has been good. Like I said, we became a world power. I don’t want to throw out the baby with the bath water. Don’t forget the advancements our country has made in the last 200 years, because of this current down turn.

Hi Ben,

I am glad we are finding a patch of common ground, even if it is relatively small. It is a starting point at least. I do, however take issue with Enbrel not being available in countries with socialized medicine - I just Googled it and it is all over the place. I encourage you to do the same. Perhaps the reason pharmaceutical sales are lower in countries with socialized medicine is because they treat the whole person, holistically, rather than try to boost profits by treating symptoms over the long term with synthetic chemicals. They get to the root of the problem rather than patching as they go. I would also point out that we are not the forerunners in medical innovation, just in profiting from the medical industry... see this link and Google for more - http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html

[Dan Conner]

I forgot to clarify my lazy comment. I wasn’t saying low class or middle class people are lazy. I was saying government programs that provide for us can make us lazy. An example of this was the discussion Mr. Conner and I had about social security. In my own life I have been lazy towards saving for a retirement. Earlier in life I figured the government had me covered. Now I realize they provide a base but I have to do something for myself. Unfortunately I don’t have any wiggle room right now to get started.

As for our health care status, I posted this on another thread: “Spend a day over in Rochester and I wonder how many leaders you will see from those countries. From my experience with arthritis I see the U.S. having the most cutting edge medications. The biologics like Enbrel are the best in the world, but cost $1600 a month. That is why 2/3 of all sales are here in the U.S., I’m sure socialist countries deny their citizens from using them.”

Our capitalist system develops and innovates the best drugs in the world. The rest of the world benefits from us by using those drugs after they can be made generic. Where we fall behind other countries in health care is preventative medicine. Only recently has our health care insurance companies realized the profit they can make by encouraging preventative health care. Soon we will have the best drugs and the best preventative health care. We just need to keep our motivation. I don’t think government health care can do that.

The way I see it, socialism is like a zoo. Socialistic governments provide “habitats” for their citizens to feel comfortable in. Capitalism is living in the wild, survival of the fittest. Our potential in the wild is much higher. Fortunately like Liz pointed out we have had a mixed economy for some time now. It’s like having veterinarians in the wild. When we get injured they are there to help us. I think our balance has been good. Like I said, we became a world power. I don’t want to throw out the baby with the bath water. Don’t forget the advancements our country has made in the last 200 years, because of this current down turn.

Yes you do say the lower and middle class as lazy. Since government proposes to help them and you say that is wrong because they become lazy, then you are accusing them of potentially becoming lazy. First, you are drawing on a very old stereotype of lower class people that certainly they must be lazy because, look, they are poor. Well, you are wrong. You would not be able to keep up with many of them during their work day. Most of them are not lazy at all. They earn what they get far more than many curtain-buying, jet-flying, office decorating CEO's. The poor are too damn busy working to get into such chickens&*^. They are working the jobs others are too lazy to do. Your failure to plan for retirement is not justification to paint all poor with your brush. Accept your own failings without blaming others. Also, you hit the nail on the head when you said "I figured the government had me covered." Well, guess what, it didn't and the government never told you it would. You failed that responsibility. I don't think it is appropriate to attach your failures to a whole class of people.

Spend a day in Rochester to see how many foreigners are there...I bet you are talking about the Saudi King Faud who was there. Guess what, not a democracy, let alone capitalist or socialist. It's a monarchy. I will gladly listen to all the foreign digntaries you know were there. You sound like you know who they are because you indicated we would see them all during a day. Then, you name them. I think you are talking through your hat again. Sure there are some, but I know of Americans going overseas for treatments, as well.

You again make totally baseless claims about the the quality of our drugs and that they don't have them in socialist countries, because they are too expensive. Prove it. In case you haven't been following the news, there was a major firestorm of protests in the US because the same medications cost so much more in the US than in the rest of the world. People were driving to Canada and Mexico to get the same medications that cost much much more in the US. Socialism was not only using the same drugs as here, but using them far cheaper.

Then you say we have the best drugs in the world. Prove it. Europe alone develops and invents a vast array of new drugs there. Your statement of "better" is not only wrong, but it is also irrelevant. You can't compare arthritis drugs with HIV drugs and assess which is better. Again, you make rash unsupported statements. You make statements comparing the US with foreign countries and I'll venture a guess you've never been to a European doctor. So, how would you know?

You contradict yourself in the very next paragraph saying socialist governments provide comfortable habitats and capitalists use "survival of the fittest." Then, you judge who is best able to live in the wild. That is a totally bizarre statement without connection to reality. First, in a comfortable environment there is not need to worry about the wild. Second, survival of the fittest might very well lead to a capitalist with a survivalist mentality getting "killed" in the wild. I will tell you that the ones who work together and cooperate will bury the "suirvivalist." It wasn't a rugged individualist that beat Japan.

Just based on what you have told me, you appear lucky you aren't in a "survival of the fittest" economy. You said you planned little for retirement and there you go...in you capitalist society.

[Liz Ratcliff]

Is there anything else in your world view besides evil rich people? Have you bought a house lately? Three years ago I was approved for a $350,000 mortgage. I was smarter then that. I built much smaller and making that payment isn’t exactly easy. How many people have racked up irresponsible credit card bills? Could that be part of the reason we aren’t consuming? We are still paying off the things we bought five years ago.

I think it comes down to what you think of your fellow citizens. Are they idiots that can’t learn and overcome their mistakes? If so, then we need socialism to survive. I like to look at the potential everyone has and don't want to limit that. I think my fellow citizens and I are better then we are right now and we can bounce back with a little help.

Hi Ben,

I see your point, but I see it from a different perspective. In our current climate, who has influence? The common "Joe Six Pack" or a wealthy bank CEO? A republic is supposed to value people equally. Money should not be able to buy influence (Washington, regardless of party affiliation is GUILTY). Credit has been promoted and used by almost everyone I know. Without it we wouldn't have houses or cars... I agree that it has gotten out of hand, and we are all to blame. But, I also believe this stems from predatory lending practices and "selling the American dream", and the lowering of wages and the rise in the cost of living. It takes two incomes to afford the average home and lifestyle, and often even that is living paycheck to paycheck. I blame the increase in the gap between the rich and poor on the devaluing of the working class. We work harder and longer for less. But have you noticed that the wealthy elite have become even richer? Do you see something wrong with that? I sure do. It has no correlation to how hard you work. It only correlates to how much money you have and how much influence you can buy. And I am not about to waste even more of my time and/or talent in defending that. Nobody will ever convince me otherwise. Nobody CEO (many who have proven themselves corrupt or incompetent) is worth hundreds of millions... Talk about worshipping false Gods - it is obscene!

[Ben Willaert]

Hi Ben,

I am glad we are finding a patch of common ground, even if it is relatively small. It is a starting point at least. I do, however take issue with Enbrel not being available in countries with socialized medicine - I just Googled it and it is all over the place. I encourage you to do the same. Perhaps the reason pharmaceutical sales are lower in countries with socialized medicine is because they treat the whole person, holistically, rather than try to boost profits by treating symptoms over the long term with synthetic chemicals. They get to the root of the problem rather than patching as they go. I would also point out that we are not the forerunners in medical innovation, just in profiting from the medical industry... see this link and Google for more - http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html

Rheumatoid arthritis and psoriatic arthritis (what I have) are autoimmune diseases. Our immune systems are attacking our bodies. There isn’t a holistic solution for what I have. Enbrel inhibits the part of the immune system that is attacking the body. These types of arthritis are worldwide yet in 2007 Enbrel had $4.4 billion in sales, $2.9 billion was in the U.S. We had 2/3rds the sales but I assure you we do not have 2/3rds of the worlds afflicted.
http://www.boston.com/business/healthcare/articles/2007/04/19/drug_nets_284m_for_mgh/
Why is the rest of the world not using this cutting edge medicine? Because it is new and therefore very expensive. Government run health cares frown on both new and expensive medicines.

Treating the whole body is the preventative medicine I was talking about. Our private health care industry is moving in that direction. Part of it is educating American citizens that drugs can’t fix everything; we have to take care of ourselves too. We have relied on our innovations to save us from our overindulgence, socialist countries do not. Obesity and smoking are two major health concerns in our country that are completely preventable through personal responsibility. Socialist countries do not have the obesity problem we do. Simply having the government take over our health care system isn’t going to fix that. We have a cultural difference.

[Liz Ratcliff]

Rheumatoid arthritis and psoriatic arthritis (what I have) are autoimmune diseases. Our immune systems are attacking our bodies. There isn’t a holistic solution for what I have. Enbrel inhibits the part of the immune system that is attacking the body. These types of arthritis are worldwide yet in 2007 Enbrel had $4.4 billion in sales, $2.9 billion was in the U.S. We had 2/3rds the sales but I assure you we do not have 2/3rds of the worlds afflicted.
http://www.boston.com/business/healthcare/articles/2007/04/19/drug_nets_284m_for_mgh/
Why is the rest of the world not using this cutting edge medicine? Because it is new and therefore very expensive. Government run health cares frown on both new and expensive medicines.

Treating the whole body is the preventative medicine I was talking about. Our private health care industry is moving in that direction. Part of it is educating American citizens that drugs can’t fix everything; we have to take care of ourselves too. We have relied on our innovations to save us from our overindulgence, socialist countries do not. Obesity and smoking are two major health concerns in our country that are completely preventable through personal responsibility. Socialist countries do not have the obesity problem we do. Simply having the government take over our health care system isn’t going to fix that. We have a cultural difference.

Hi Ben,

I don't mean to sound condescending, but I don't think you have researched alternative healthcare for your condition. A recent study found that hydrotherapy is particularly beneficial for arthritis sufferers. One hundred thirty-nine patients with chronic rheumatoid arthritis were randomly assigned to receive hydrotherapy, seated immersion, land exercise, or progressive relaxation.

Patients attended 30-minute sessions twice weekly for 4 weeks. Physical and psychological measures were completed before and after intervention, and again at a 3-month follow-up.

The results showed that all patients improved physically and emotionally, as assessed by the Arthritis Impact Measurement Scales 2 questionnaire. The patients' belief that their pain was controlled by chance happenings decreased, signifying not just improvement in their condition but also in their belief to be able to manage their symptoms. For the rest of the story...

http://www.internethealthlibrary.com/Health-problems/Rheumatoid%20Arthritis%20-%20researchAltTherapies.htm

There were far too many links to list... Another problem I see with western medicine is the lack of communicating alternatives to drugs. We just want a quick chemical fix. In your case, maybe that is the most effective treatment, but that doesn't mean there is only one treatment. As I said, I think other countries focus on holistic treatments, reducing or eliminating the need for synthetic chemicals. I am not the least bit surprised that the US has the highest drug consumption. Nope, no surprise there...

So now you are saying that socialist countries are overindulgent? Perhaps I am misunderstanding your context? I thought originally you said that with socialism we would all be deprived of the "best" but now you are saying that socialism has no checks against overindulgence...

The Western capitalism philosophy might have something to do with obesity... funny how the healthy food is so expensive and fast food is so cheap, and cheaply made, void of proper nutrition and riddled with synthetic additives, preservative, or genetically modified organisms? It is a cultural thing, yes, but it is also about mass producing and marketing food for the least amount of money and pumping it out for the masses to consume and the CEO's to hit the jackpot. Over 99 billion served, right? And virtually no nutritional value, in fact, most fast food is nutritionally harmful. Hey those empty calories keep the insurance cos and pharmas in the black, bigtime!

I agree that we have to start taking better care of ourselves. It starts with putting value on our lives and the lives of others. When we really start to love and appreciate our whole selves and others, we will see that it takes more than synthetic chemicals to heal us. When we start to invest time in ourselves and learn how to properly take care of ourselves, physically, mentally, and emotionally the need for western medicine will be reduced. The human mind is a powerful thing... I would encourage you to look into alternative health practices such as acupunture, massage, Reiki, healing touch, as well as consulting a nutritionist. I used to be skeptical of such methods, but I am a believer from personal experience. You would be surprised at what is in some of the stuff we eat that contributes to chronic conditions. I am sorry you suffer from arthritis and I hope that you are able to find relief and optimum health. A great book to read on the subject that I would recommend is called JHealth on the Edge - Visionary Views of Healing in the New Millennium by Larry Trivieri, Jr. Good luck to you! I mean that :)

[Ben Willaert]

Yes you do say the lower and middle class as lazy. Since government proposes to help them and you say that is wrong because they become lazy, then you are accusing them of potentially becoming lazy. First, you are drawing on a very old stereotype of lower class people that certainly they must be lazy because, look, they are poor. Well, you are wrong. You would not be able to keep up with many of them during their work day. Most of them are not lazy at all. They earn what they get far more than many curtain-buying, jet-flying, office decorating CEO's. The poor are too damn busy working to get into such chickens&*^. They are working the jobs others are too lazy to do. Your failure to plan for retirement is not justification to paint all poor with your brush. Accept your own failings without blaming others. Also, you hit the nail on the head when you said "I figured the government had me covered." Well, guess what, it didn't and the government never told you it would. You failed that responsibility. I don't think it is appropriate to attach your failures to a whole class of people.


I absolutely 150% agree our low class and middle class are not lazy. I am referring to the effects of permanent government assistance in our lives. We would become dependant (my ill used word “lazy”) on the government providing for us. At that point we loose a motivation to reach our fullest potential. I naively lost the motivation to provide myself the best retirement. I am sorry you believe I am a failure. I do not. I made a mistake that I am going to fix on my own or live with the consequences. Identifying the mistake is half the battle. It would be a lot easier to just blame some rich politician somewhere for screwing me, but I am not. That would not get me anywhere. I also don’t think it is right to demand the government add more money to social security to remedy my blunder.

Maybe that is my problem with socialism. I have made a lot of mistakes in my life and I don’t feel right asking the government to provide for me. I made my bed and now I am laying in it while battling my way back. I see the motivations in my life and I want that for everyone. I am truly a better person because of them. Personal responsibility is very liberating. Blaming others (the rich) does nothing but get you mad at other people. Government dependence takes away personal responsibility from those that didn’t have money in the first place. True though, the rich become personally responsible for all us. I love being responsible for my life, so maybe I am the selfish one after all. I don’t want to loose my personal responsibility.

And yes, I do keep up, I am one of them. Middle of the month I'll be part of a crew catching 5000 free range chickens a day. I started as a general laborer at my current job and worked my way up to the production manager position. That doesn't mean I get out of any of the labor, I just have to navigate and do more paperwork now too.

[Liz Ratcliff]

I forgot to clarify my lazy comment. I wasn’t saying low class or middle class people are lazy. I was saying government programs that provide for us can make us lazy. An example of this was the discussion Mr. Conner and I had about social security. In my own life I have been lazy towards saving for a retirement. Earlier in life I figured the government had me covered. Now I realize they provide a base but I have to do something for myself. Unfortunately I don’t have any wiggle room right now to get started.

Maybe this is true, I don't know you, so I couldn't say. But look at all the people that weren't "lazy" with their retirement (invested in the market) and now have significantly reduced retirement accounts. Thank God they do have Social Security as a small safety net. I know for me personally, I would love to be worry free in regards to my retirement. It would give me more energy to focus on being my best all the time and more time for myself (which is a good, rejuvinating thing, no matter what Western culture says - it has been proven to increase productivity). I don't think most people are that different. In fact you probably aren't that different either. It is unfortunate that we live in a time when so many working people are struggling to contribute to their retirement account. Without some kind of socialist intervention, that does not bode well for the future...

[Ben Willaert]

Hi Ben,

I don't mean to sound condescending, but I don't think you have researched alternative healthcare for your condition. A recent study found that hydrotherapy is particularly beneficial for arthritis sufferers. One hundred thirty-nine patients with chronic rheumatoid arthritis were randomly assigned to receive hydrotherapy, seated immersion, land exercise, or progressive relaxation.

Patients attended 30-minute sessions twice weekly for 4 weeks. Physical and psychological measures were completed before and after intervention, and again at a 3-month follow-up.

The results showed that all patients improved physically and emotionally, as assessed by the Arthritis Impact Measurement Scales 2 questionnaire. The patients' belief that their pain was controlled by chance happenings decreased, signifying not just improvement in their condition but also in their belief to be able to manage their symptoms. For the rest of the story...

http://www.internethealthlibrary.com/Health-problems/Rheumatoid%20Arthritis%20-%20researchAltTherapies.htm

So now you are saying that socialist countries are overindulgent? Perhaps I am misunderstanding your context? I thought originally you said that with socialism we would all be deprived of the "best" but now you are saying that socialism has no checks against overindulgence...


That study is a little misleading. The rheumatoid (or psoriatic) arthritis can cause osteoarthritis which is what most people have in their joints from old age or injury. The hydrotherapy helps the osteoarthritis. I don’t have any osteoarthritis because I have been able to control my immune system. The hydrotherapy can’t do anything to control the immune system so it would do me no good. Instead of swelling from injury or old age my immune system actually attacks my joints because it thinks something is wrong when nothing is. In the process my immune system actually causes the damage that is osteoarthritis, but like I said I have been able to avoid that so far.

No offense taken. I am always looking for new ways to improve myself. I welcome all perspectives as a great way to find the best solutions. That is probably my biggest objection to the blame the rich guy mentality, it offers only one perspective.

I meant we overindulge. Socialistic countries do not. That is a culture difference between us and them and that is why they are healthier. Education is more important then the government taking over our health care for making us healthier.

[Liz Ratcliff]

That study is a little misleading. The rheumatoid (or psoriatic) arthritis can cause osteoarthritis which is what most people have in their joints from old age or injury. The hydrotherapy helps the osteoarthritis. I don’t have any osteoarthritis because I have been able to control my immune system. The hydrotherapy can’t do anything to control the immune system so it would do me no good. Instead of swelling from injury or old age my immune system actually attacks my joints because it thinks something is wrong when nothing is. In the process my immune system actually causes the damage that is osteoarthritis, but like I said I have been able to avoid that so far.

No offense taken. I am always looking for new ways to improve myself. I welcome all perspectives as a great way to find the best solutions. That is probably my biggest objection to the blame the rich guy mentality, it offers only one perspective.

I meant we overindulge. Socialistic countries do not. That is a culture difference between us and them and that is why they are healthier. Education is more important then the government taking over our health care for making us healthier.

Ben,

I know we are getting a little off topic, but holistic medicine, maybe not hydrotherapy, offers solutions to all types of chronic conditions including problems with the immune system - check it out - you may be surprised at all that it out there. I am a Reiki student and I know there are holistic methods that can help conditions like yours.

If socialism, or socialized medicine leads to healthier people, perhaps it isn't so bad? :) And I would agree that education is of extreme importance. Although I am not sure I would place it above health. If we aren't healthy, we tend not to learn as well as those that are.

[Ben Willaert]

Ben,

I know we are getting a little off topic, but holistic medicine, maybe not hydrotherapy, offers solutions to all types of chronic conditions including problems with the immune system - check it out - you may be surprised at all that it out there. I am a Reiki student and I know there are holistic methods that can help conditions like yours.

If socialism, or socialized medicine leads to healthier people, perhaps it isn't so bad? :) And I would agree that education is of extreme importance. Although I am not sure I would place it above health. If we aren't healthy, we tend not to learn as well as those that are.

Thanks, I will look into it. :)

I meant education is more important for better health. Government health care won't do as much for health as education can. Our private health care is just starting to focus more on education, which I think is the best direction for us.

[Liz Ratcliff]

That study is a little misleading. The rheumatoid (or psoriatic) arthritis can cause osteoarthritis which is what most people have in their joints from old age or injury. The hydrotherapy helps the osteoarthritis. I don’t have any osteoarthritis because I have been able to control my immune system. The hydrotherapy can’t do anything to control the immune system so it would do me no good. Instead of swelling from injury or old age my immune system actually attacks my joints because it thinks something is wrong when nothing is. In the process my immune system actually causes the damage that is osteoarthritis, but like I said I have been able to avoid that so far.

No offense taken. I am always looking for new ways to improve myself. I welcome all perspectives as a great way to find the best solutions. That is probably my biggest objection to the blame the rich guy mentality, it offers only one perspective.

I meant we overindulge. Socialistic countries do not. That is a culture difference between us and them and that is why they are healthier. Education is more important then the government taking over our health care for making us healthier.

One last point before I sign off regarding the blame the rich guy mentality. I don't want to stir the pot, but in our current situation, wasn't it pretty much some elite rich guys/gals that lead to this problem? Sure there were some bad mortgagees but the problem largely stems from unregulated greed. I am open to many perspectives, but that one seems to fit the bill. With that said, I don't waste a lot of time dwelling on how we got here but rather on how to get out of this mess. However it is important to remember the mistakes of the past so not to repeat them - to change the way we do things.

Good night!

[Liz Ratcliff]

Thanks, I will look into it. :)

I meant education is more important for better health. Government health care won't do as much for health as education can. Our private health care is just starting to focus more on education, which I think is the best direction for us.

Of course, that makes more sense...

I think we are going to need the government and citizen activists/educators to intervene... because as it is now, there are too many heavy hitting lobbies that will stand in the way of a truly enlightened consumer in regards to their health. If I have to pick between a BIG government or BIG business to look out for me, I pick the GOV everytime, assuming we are talking about the democratic republic of the USA or France, Italy, UK...

[Dan Conner]

Rheumatoid arthritis and psoriatic arthritis (what I have) are autoimmune diseases. Our immune systems are attacking our bodies. There isn’t a holistic solution for what I have. Enbrel inhibits the part of the immune system that is attacking the body. These types of arthritis are worldwide yet in 2007 Enbrel had $4.4 billion in sales, $2.9 billion was in the U.S. We had 2/3rds the sales but I assure you we do not have 2/3rds of the worlds afflicted.
http://www.boston.com/business/healthcare/articles/2007/04/19/drug_nets_284m_for_mgh/
Why is the rest of the world not using this cutting edge medicine? Because it is new and therefore very expensive. Government run health cares frown on both new and expensive medicines.

Treating the whole body is the preventative medicine I was talking about. Our private health care industry is moving in that direction. Part of it is educating American citizens that drugs can’t fix everything; we have to take care of ourselves too. We have relied on our innovations to save us from our overindulgence, socialist countries do not. Obesity and smoking are two major health concerns in our country that are completely preventable through personal responsibility. Socialist countries do not have the obesity problem we do. Simply having the government take over our health care system isn’t going to fix that. We have a cultural difference. Well, some things then just come down to responsbility, like you have said. A solution for violent people who mix energy drinks with alcohol is not to ban energy drinks. I would think many drink them responsibly. What is needed is to punish violent offenders and then get them the treatment to quit.

[Ben Willaert]

One last point before I sign off regarding the blame the rich guy mentality. I don't want to stir the pot, but in our current situation, wasn't it pretty much some elite rich guys/gals that lead to this problem? Sure there were some bad mortgagees but the problem largely stems from unregulated greed. I am open to many perspectives, but that one seems to fit the bill. With that said, I don't waste a lot of time dwelling on how we got here but rather on how to get out of this mess. However it is important to remember the mistakes of the past so not to repeat them - to change the way we do things.

Good night!

Sure there is blame for greed, not sure if it all belongs to the rich though. I wonder how much being able to buy and sell stocks on the internet started the instability. Instead of the pro’s, anyone can do it on their own now. The average American was doing just fine paying their credit card minimums while enjoying their new house. Then gas prices skyrocketed because of stock speculation. We lost our disposable income plus some. We stopped consuming other products to make up for the high gas prices. Businesses lost the sales of those other products and had to cut back. Manufacturing got cut back from supplying the businesses. Soon the layoffs start because of the cut backs. Now people can’t pay their mortgages and it is exposed the mortgage brokers got the banks to agree to a lot of risky loans. At the same time, the auto industry also gambled on us. They let us lease vehicles with a certain amount of depreciation calculated in. High gas prices sent the demand for the very expensive gas hogs into the ground. Lease vehicles are coming back in with a resale value nothing close to the amount the auto company still needs out of them. With high labor costs from their unions, they don’t have much wiggle room and are in serious trouble real quick. And to top it all off the stock market goes haywire because there are a bunch of amateurs pulling out on every whim. As stock goes down companies have to lay off more because they don’t have capital and their products aren’t selling.

Or at least that is the way I witnessed it. I think it is worth all our time to examine what happened and what each of us could have done differently. Saying the rich did it and punishing them with higher taxes doesn’t prevent anything I just mentioned from happening again. This whole thing is too catastrophic to be perpetrated by a few evil CEO’s. That is the problem with placing blame; we miss a whole bunch more of the story. That is why I try to never say “they did this” or “they did that”. It is always “us” or “we”. And Don’t even get me started on “they say” when it comes to the weather! What ever “they say” is never what we get!:)

[Ben Willaert]

Well, some things then just come down to responsbility, like you have said. A solution for violent people who mix energy drinks with alcohol is not to ban energy drinks. I would think many drink them responsibly. What is needed is to punish violent offenders and then get them the treatment to quit.

Huh, not sure where you are trying to go with that one. My point was that anyone can become violent when mixing alcohol and energy drinks. Yes, I have already acknowledged my proposal to ban energy drinks is contrary to many of my capitalist values. I have no problem switching sides when it is appropriate.

[Liz Ratcliff]

Sure there is blame for greed, not sure if it all belongs to the rich though. I wonder how much being able to buy and sell stocks on the internet started the instability. Instead of the pro’s, anyone can do it on their own now. The average American was doing just fine paying their credit card minimums while enjoying their new house. Then gas prices skyrocketed because of stock speculation. We lost our disposable income plus some. We stopped consuming other products to make up for the high gas prices. Businesses lost the sales of those other products and had to cut back. Manufacturing got cut back from supplying the businesses. Soon the layoffs start because of the cut backs. Now people can’t pay their mortgages and it is exposed the mortgage brokers got the banks to agree to a lot of risky loans. At the same time, the auto industry also gambled on us. They let us lease vehicles with a certain amount of depreciation calculated in. High gas prices sent the demand for the very expensive gas hogs into the ground. Lease vehicles are coming back in with a resale value nothing close to the amount the auto company still needs out of them. With high labor costs from their unions, they don’t have much wiggle room and are in serious trouble real quick. And to top it all off the stock market goes haywire because there are a bunch of amateurs pulling out on every whim. As stock goes down companies have to lay off more because they don’t have capital and their products aren’t selling.

Or at least that is the way I witnessed it. I think it is worth all our time to examine what happened and what each of us could have done differently. Saying the rich did it and punishing them with higher taxes doesn’t prevent anything I just mentioned from happening again. This whole thing is too catastrophic to be perpetrated by a few evil CEO’s. That is the problem with placing blame; we miss a whole bunch more of the story. That is why I try to never say “they did this” or “they did that”. It is always “us” or “we”. And Don’t even get me started on “they say” when it comes to the weather! What ever “they say” is never what we get!:)

I think you are making my point... who controls oil? who controls the auto industry? Not the common folk. I agree that we all have to take responsibility, but figuring out the cause of this crisis is paramount to insuring it doesn't happen again. The CEO's should have seen this coming and made changes, but the profits were too good... for a while... Why defend their negligence? Again it is putting money before people and that is NEVER a good thing.

And I don't think we are punishing the rich with taxes. Are they still not rich? Is it so much punishment to give something back to the country that afforded them the opportunity to become so rich? Conservatives make it sound like everything is being from them... Have you done research on taxes? By the time you take advantage of all of the loopholes and write offs, I think you would be surprised by what is really paid in taxes - not as much as we are lead to believe... (ok, so it might change some of the super mega rich to just plain super rich?) I would think that the rich (generalizing here) would want to keep the middle and lower class flourishing because it is only going to benefit them with a sound consumer base. Without them, who will buy their stuff? What goes around comes around. We have to take care of the WHOLE country, not just parts... Not to mention the tax cuts that made their way into the stimulus... No more crying in the soup for the wealthy elite. I say buck up little campers, you can do it!

This is from Obama's site -

Obama’s Comprehensive Tax Policy Plan for America will:
Cut taxes for 95 percent of workers and their families with a tax cut of $500 for workers or $1,000 for working couples.
Provide generous tax cuts for low- and middle-income seniors, homeowners, the uninsured, and families sending a child to college or looking to save and accumulate wealth.
Eliminate capital gains taxes for small businesses, cut corporate taxes for firms that invest and create jobs in the United States, and provide tax credits to reduce the cost of healthcare and to reward investments in innovation.
Dramatically simplify taxes by consolidating existing tax credits, eliminating the need for millions of senior citizens to file tax forms, and enabling as many as 40 million middle-class Americans to do their own taxes in less than five minutes without an accountant.
Under the Obama Plan:
Middle class families will see their taxes cut – and no family making less than $250,000 will see their taxes increase. The typical middle class family will receive well over $1,000 in tax relief under the Obama plan, and will pay tax rates that are 20% lower than they faced under President Reagan. According to the Tax Policy Center, the Obama plan provides three times as much tax relief for middle class families as the McCain plan.
Families making more than $250,000 will pay either the same or lower tax rates than they paid in the 1990s. Obama will ask the wealthiest 2% of families to give back a portion of the tax cuts they have received over the past eight years to ensure we are restoring fairness and returning to fiscal responsibility. But no family will pay higher tax rates than they would have paid in the 1990s. In fact, dividend rates would be 39 percent lower than what President Bush proposed in his 2001 tax cut.
Obama’s plan will cut taxes overall, reducing revenues to below the levels that prevailed under Ronald Reagan (less than 18.2 percent of GDP). The Obama tax plan is a net tax cut – his tax relief for middle class families is larger than the revenue raised by his tax changes for families over $250,000. Coupled with his commitment to cut unnecessary spending, Obama will pay for this tax relief while bringing down the budget deficit.

And here is another good piece - http://www.sltrib.com/Opinion/ci_11803000

[Dan Conner]

Sure there is blame for greed, not sure if it all belongs to the rich though. I wonder how much being able to buy and sell stocks on the internet started the instability. Instead of the pro’s, anyone can do it on their own now. The average American was doing just fine paying their credit card minimums while enjoying their new house. Then gas prices skyrocketed because of stock speculation. We lost our disposable income plus some. We stopped consuming other products to make up for the high gas prices. Businesses lost the sales of those other products and had to cut back. Manufacturing got cut back from supplying the businesses. Soon the layoffs start because of the cut backs. Now people can’t pay their mortgages and it is exposed the mortgage brokers got the banks to agree to a lot of risky loans. At the same time, the auto industry also gambled on us. They let us lease vehicles with a certain amount of depreciation calculated in. High gas prices sent the demand for the very expensive gas hogs into the ground. Lease vehicles are coming back in with a resale value nothing close to the amount the auto company still needs out of them. With high labor costs from their unions, they don’t have much wiggle room and are in serious trouble real quick. And to top it all off the stock market goes haywire because there are a bunch of amateurs pulling out on every whim. As stock goes down companies have to lay off more because they don’t have capital and their products aren’t selling.

Or at least that is the way I witnessed it. I think it is worth all our time to examine what happened and what each of us could have done differently. Saying the rich did it and punishing them with higher taxes doesn’t prevent anything I just mentioned from happening again. This whole thing is too catastrophic to be perpetrated by a few evil CEO’s. That is the problem with placing blame; we miss a whole bunch more of the story. That is why I try to never say “they did this” or “they did that”. It is always “us” or “we”. And Don’t even get me started on “they say” when it comes to the weather! What ever “they say” is never what we get!:)

This depression was not caused but anything than the mortgage loan business. There have been $ trillions that have gone bad. That caused the squeeze everywhere else. While consumers haven't exactly been the virtue of manoey managers, it was the mortgage mrket that turned things updide down. Even Bush saw that.

[Free Press Editor Joe Spear]

I would say it's time for a new thread. I don't think this is about "state of the union" anymore...Also, we make our forum more accessible by being more organized and specific about titles for the particular discussions. Anyone want to volunteer to start a new thread?

[Ben Willaert]

This depression was not caused but anything than the mortgage loan business. There have been $ trillions that have gone bad. That caused the squeeze everywhere else. While consumers haven't exactly been the virtue of manoey managers, it was the mortgage mrket that turned things updide down. Even Bush saw that.

You don’t think the high gas prices pinched consumers? I know I couldn’t buy the things I used to because my money was going into my gas tank. Without people consuming, businesses can’t sell products and have to cut back resulting in layoffs. The high gas prices had more to do with speculation on the stock market then any evil CEO’s or the mortgage market. Saudi Arabia and OPEC just sat back and enjoyed the show. Why should they sell oil cheaper then it is being bought and sold for on the stock market; is what they said to Bush.

The oil speculation was fueled by the belief that Americans could never cut back on the amount of oil we consume. The risky mortgages were giving us the homes we demanded. The auto leases were letting us drive expensive vehicles at a reduced rate. So I guess the question is: Do the evil rich people control what we consume, or do they provide us what we want to consume?

The way I see it, the evil rich people took a chance on us. They figured that if we are allowed to own more things we would become more responsible in paying for them. We did for awhile, but then the high gas prices and the slowdown came pinching our pockets even more, causing us to default. The evil rich people got burned gambling on us. They wanted us to win and in turn they win too. But again, that is just my theory.

[Ben Willaert]

I would say it's time for a new thread. I don't think this is about "state of the union" anymore...Also, we make our forum more accessible by being more organized and specific about titles for the particular discussions. Anyone want to volunteer to start a new thread?

Sure, how about a thread on what started this whole economic mess.

[Free Press Editor Joe Spear]

Pretty broad. Might want to consider narrowing to "regulation and economic mess" or "tax and spending and econmic mess" just to get it manageable. Thanks.

[Dan Conner]

Pretty broad. Might want to consider narrowing to "regulation and economic mess" or "tax and spending and econmic mess" just to get it manageable. Thanks.

How about Regulation and the Economy? If we do create a new thread, can we transfer the relevant posts to that thread?

[Mary Peterson]

You are apparently another one who 'gets chills up & down your leg' when Obama speaks. If you really listen, he doesn't say anything, except to use every occasion to again 'run for president'. When is he going to start doing something besides 'TALK'?!! He should have been a salesman instead of president. He has done nothing for me except to make me upset when he goes overseas & runs down America. When Michelle Obama belittled the $600 that was given out by Bush by saying, that she guessed she could buy a new pair of earrings, it told me exactly that they are both so out of touch with 'real Americans', that no solution for anything is going to come from Obama as he & his wife seem to agree that there is not much good about America. And I was not happy with a lot of Bush's stuff either. If you don't watch at least 'some' Fox news reports, you will not get the true side of what is going on in the USA. Obama & liars like Nancy Pelosi are running us into even bigger messes than any other admistration ever has. I'm proud to be an American & also, they need to stop trying to get people into jobs based on race. The jobs should go to the most qualified. Aren't white Americans now the minority? If you DARE to disagree with Obama or anyone he is connected with, the "race card" is played or the "homophobic card" is played if you disagree with left-wingers. I am sick of it. It's time that patriotic Americans start fighting back. The "squeaky wheel gets the oil", & it's time that conservative Americans get 'squeaky' I guess.

[Liz Ratcliff]

You are apparently another one who 'gets chills up & down your leg' when Obama speaks. If you really listen, he doesn't say anything, except to use every occasion to again 'run for president'. When is he going to start doing something besides 'TALK'?!! He should have been a salesman instead of president. He has done nothing for me except to make me upset when he goes overseas & runs down America. When Michelle Obama belittled the $600 that was given out by Bush by saying, that she guessed she could buy a new pair of earrings, it told me exactly that they are both so out of touch with 'real Americans', that no solution for anything is going to come from Obama as he & his wife seem to agree that there is not much good about America. And I was not happy with a lot of Bush's stuff either. If you don't watch at least 'some' Fox news reports, you will not get the true side of what is going on in the USA. Obama & liars like Nancy Pelosi are running us into even bigger messes than any other admistration ever has. I'm proud to be an American & also, they need to stop trying to get people into jobs based on race. The jobs should go to the most qualified. Aren't white Americans now the minority? If you DARE to disagree with Obama or anyone he is connected with, the "race card" is played or the "homophobic card" is played if you disagree with left-wingers. I am sick of it. It's time that patriotic Americans start fighting back. The "squeaky wheel gets the oil", & it's time that conservative Americans get 'squeaky' I guess.

Human emotions can usually be boiled down to two feelings - fear and love. I choose love. Fear fills us with hate, misery, intolerance, etc...

I haven't heard anything about the race card or homophobic card - must be FOX talking points, not surprising. Nevertheless, do other races and homosexuals have the right to use the "card" when they are unjustly discriminated against - darn right! And if one is tolerant/sympathetic to their plight, they wouldn't begrudge them that... Everyone should be given the same rights - they are human rights, not white or black rights, not heterosexual or homosexual rights, not conservative or liberal rights.... TOLERANCE is not a bad word... it is a beautiful thing. It is time we all start squeaking for our fellow mankind and stop worrying about me, me, me, me, me..... It just so happens that WE are in a big mess and WE are going to have to pull together and HELP EACH OTHER if we are going to pull through.

I am optimistic that Obama will continue to work hard and make a positive change. But let's not forget the mess that was left for him...

[Bob Jentges]

You are apparently another one who 'gets chills up & down your leg' when Obama speaks. If you really listen, he doesn't say anything, except to use every occasion to again 'run for president'. When is he going to start doing something besides 'TALK'?!! He should have been a salesman instead of president. He has done nothing for me except to make me upset when he goes overseas & runs down America. When Michelle Obama belittled the $600 that was given out by Bush by saying, that she guessed she could buy a new pair of earrings, it told me exactly that they are both so out of touch with 'real Americans', that no solution for anything is going to come from Obama as he & his wife seem to agree that there is not much good about America. And I was not happy with a lot of Bush's stuff either. If you don't watch at least 'some' Fox news reports, you will not get the true side of what is going on in the USA. Obama & liars like Nancy Pelosi are running us into even bigger messes than any other admistration ever has. I'm proud to be an American & also, they need to stop trying to get people into jobs based on race. The jobs should go to the most qualified. Aren't white Americans now the minority? If you DARE to disagree with Obama or anyone he is connected with, the "race card" is played or the "homophobic card" is played if you disagree with left-wingers. I am sick of it. It's time that patriotic Americans start fighting back. The "squeaky wheel gets the oil", & it's time that conservative Americans get 'squeaky' I guess.

The Forum needs some fresh voices; welcome Mary!

Many of us have been "fighting back"--a little late maybe but at least it's a start. But if you have been reading the Forum for any length of time I expect you are aware of the "emotions" one can generate from some members if your opinions do not fit their template. In fact, some have even edited their post hours after another member submitted a reply to that origional post.

From the basic philosophy I read in your post above you can rest assured there are more than a few similar thinking members who are regular contributors to the Forum. In a debate, logic should prevail over emotion every time.

[Dan Conner]

The Forum needs some fresh voices; welcome Mary!

Many of us have been "fighting back"--a little late maybe but at least it's a start. But if you have been reading the Forum for any length of time I expect you are aware of the "emotions" one can generate from some members if your opinions do not fit their template. In fact, some have even edited their post hours after another member submitted a reply to that origional post.

From the basic philosophy I read in your post above you can rest assured there are more than a few similar thinking members who are regular contributors to the Forum. In a debate, logic should prevail over emotion every time.

I suggest you keep your comments relative to the post. And "Fighting Back?" I wasn't aware this was a fight. I guess it shows the emotion you are bringing to this topic. I suggest emotional restraint is necessary for you. As far as editing is concerned, there are others who should have edited their remarks, but didn't.

I totally agree with facts and logic being paramount to any discussion. It would be important that we all use them. However, I was brought up with an examine yourself before criticizing someone else philosophy. I think that is a good rule for anyone to follow...you included.

[Dan Conner]

You are apparently another one who 'gets chills up & down your leg' when Obama speaks. If you really listen, he doesn't say anything, except to use every occasion to again 'run for president'. When is he going to start doing something besides 'TALK'?!! He should have been a salesman instead of president. He has done nothing for me except to make me upset when he goes overseas & runs down America. When Michelle Obama belittled the $600 that was given out by Bush by saying, that she guessed she could buy a new pair of earrings, it told me exactly that they are both so out of touch with 'real Americans', that no solution for anything is going to come from Obama as he & his wife seem to agree that there is not much good about America. And I was not happy with a lot of Bush's stuff either. If you don't watch at least 'some' Fox news reports, you will not get the true side of what is going on in the USA. Obama & liars like Nancy Pelosi are running us into even bigger messes than any other admistration ever has. I'm proud to be an American & also, they need to stop trying to get people into jobs based on race. The jobs should go to the most qualified. Aren't white Americans now the minority? If you DARE to disagree with Obama or anyone he is connected with, the "race card" is played or the "homophobic card" is played if you disagree with left-wingers. I am sick of it. It's time that patriotic Americans start fighting back. The "squeaky wheel gets the oil", & it's time that conservative Americans get 'squeaky' I guess.

Obviously, the writings of a conservative. Judging before a chance to serve. Recent news reports have highly rated President Obama in his first 100 day. In fact, he has passed as much major legislation as our greatest Presidents (FDR and Lincoln). He has even received "A" ratings for improving foreign relationships. What he has done goes far beyond talk.

It sounds like you are showing racial prejudice in your remarks. Why are you concerned about "whites" being in a minority or playing "race cards?" I have never heard him invoking the "race card", but then you sound sensitive to that. Why don't you deal more with the facts here and give examples of his use of the "race card" so we can make up our own mind about who is prejudiced.

Your writings seems filled with a lot of hate. Much of that unfounded. It would be far better to stick to facts instead of hate-filled diatribe. There was an old television show called "Dragnet", where the main character, Joe Friday, would always say, "yes mam, stick to the facts--nothing but the facts." I think your post is almost all emotion, with little fact in it. That doesn't persuade me.

[Bob Jentges]

MARY---It looks like some think my quoting your "fighting back" phrase was going off your "post". Interesting opinion. Almost as interesting as someone making the comment that your post was: "Obviously the writings of a conservative".

I did not view my post #94 in response to your #92 as "emotional". I guess that is a matter of opinion. But I think my point about "emotional" replies was made in another members posts #95 and #96. It seems to be the old 180 degree tactic used often, but usually ineffectivly, by some.

Also, I think you understood that my reference to editing ones posts was not an objection to editing per se. I have done it often. What it was, as I stated, was questioning if it was proper to edit ones post after another member had responded to the initial post.

We should not give-up our philosophies, and should not allow ourselves to be bullied by those who disagree with those philosophies!

I look forward to hearing more of your thoughts in the Forum, on a variety of issues, as time goes on.

[Dan Conner]

MARY---It looks like some think my quoting your "fighting back" phrase was going off your "post". Interesting opinion. Almost as interesting as someone making the comment that your post was: "Obviously the writings of a conservative".

I did not view my post #94 in response to your #92 as "emotional". I guess that is a matter of opinion. But I think my point about "emotional" replies was made in another members posts #95 and #96. It seems to be the old 180 degree tactic used often, but usually ineffectivly, by some.

Also, I think you understood that my reference to editing ones posts was not an objection to editing per se. I have done it often. What it was, as I stated, was questioning if it was proper to edit ones post after another member had responded to the initial post.

We should not give-up our philosophies, and should not allow ourselves to be bullied by those who disagree with those philosophies!

I look forward to hearing more of your thoughts in the Forum, on a variety of issues, as time goes on.

Looks like some are hiding behind Mary. Too bad you think they can't "fight" their own fight. Well, some have to go to "Joe" and others to Mary. Posting without facts must be emotional. The reply about emotion was addressed to all respondents, since it was addressed to no one. Well, I guess there is such a thing as 180 degrees, so there is one fact here. It's too bad that it couldn't have been applied correctly.

Some people really seem to get paranoid about editing and post numbers. I guess that's when they don't have much substance to the arguement any longer and resort to emotion. Some people cling to beliefs out of resistance to change, even when those beliefs don't make sense any longer. They don't have any factual basis for the belief so they speak from emotion and attack the writer. They define their words along the way, claim they represent a point of view, but don't quite know what that point of view is. Also, they love to cloak themselves with some sort of intellectual label, even though they don't quite know what the label means.

I think "bullying" is a defense used by some who have no plausible arguement and are bankrupt of ideas. They use it in retaliation against those with ideas. Afterall, what better way to defend the status-quo? When no ideas, there is no need for defense, just offense.

[Bob Jentges]

If you are referring to me Dan, I am not hiding behind Joe or Mary or anyone. I just think it would be better if some would allow Mary to respond to posts directed to her (if she choses to respond) before they jump in and comment getting previous posts to her lost in the maze of other posts. This is not the Dan Conner Show!

[Dan Conner]

If you are referring to me Dan, I am not hiding behind Joe or Mary or anyone. I just think it would be better if some would allow Mary to respond to posts directed to her (if she choses to respond) before they jump in and comment getting previous posts to her lost in the maze of other posts. This is not the Dan Conner Show!

You sure seem to misinterpret a lot. I was responding to your post. Why would I respond to hers, when I meant yours? Just look at the window including your post.

[Bob Jentges]

You sure seem to misinterpret a lot. I was responding to your post. Why would I respond to hers, when I meant yours? Just look at the window including your post.

I realize you were responding to my post #97, but my Post #97 was directed to "MARY". I thought your name was Dan!

[Free Press Editor Joe Spear]

Because this thread continues to morph from "State of the Union" may I suggest a new thread. How about "What makes a persuasive argument in these divisive times?"

[Liz Ratcliff]

If you are referring to me Dan, I am not hiding behind Joe or Mary or anyone. I just think it would be better if some would allow Mary to respond to posts directed to her (if she choses to respond) before they jump in and comment getting previous posts to her lost in the maze of other posts. This is not the Dan Conner Show!

How long does one need to wait for Mary to respond before we are alllowed to comment? I don't want to start any fights, but I would like to point out that you too are commenting (directly to Mary or in Dan in a round about way?) before Mary has responded... I think the forum is for all to comment when they are so inclined. And while I disagree with your and Mary's philosophy, I respect your voice and hope that these spirited debates continue. Honest and open debate promotes enlightenment! :)

PEACE!

[Liz Ratcliff]

Because this thread continues to morph from "State of the Union" may I suggest a new thread. How about "What makes a persuasive argument in these divisive times?"

That is a great idea!!! I real brain bender in these times... :)

[Bob Jentges]

It has been about one year since the 2008 elections, and about eight months since President Obama's State of the Union speach. Here is an editorial from an Ohio newspaper entitled: "It's been quite a year since Obama's election".
Like many others he seems to be asking: How's that Hope & Change working for you?

Sometimes it takes a sense of humor to get us through trying times!

http://www.morninjournal.com/articles/2019/11/01/opinion/mj1823468.txt

I heard there is a philosophy out there that recomends to "...bait an opponent into reacting...". Let's see if it works in reverse!

[Bob Jentges]

It has been about one year since the 2008 elections, and about eight months since President Obama's State of the Union speach. Here is an editorial from an Ohio newspaper entitled: "It's been quite a year since Obama's election".
Like many others he seems to be asking: How's that Hope & Change working for you?

Sometimes it takes a sense of humor to get us through trying times!

http://www.morninjournal.com/articles/2019/11/01/opinion/mj1823468.txt

I heard there is a philosophy out there that recomends to "...bait an opponent into reacting...". Let's see if it works in reverse!

Silence!

From past history toward my other posts I consider that a completly unexpected consequence. But I guess that is an example that not all unexpected consequences are bad!

[Dan Conner]

I realize you were responding to my post #97, but my Post #97 was directed to "MARY". I thought your name was Dan!Then direct your response to Mary in a private setting, not a public one for others to see. You make a public comment, the public is entitlede to a response. Heaven knows, I've had kabitzer's responding to me when I directed it to you. But, if it makes you feel better I'll shed a tiny tear...

[Bob Jentges]

This recent New York Times article "Obama v Roberts: The Struggle to Come" is probably not directly on point with the last State of the Union address, but I think directly related to the state of the union as relates to the balance of power.

The President, Congress, and members of the Supreme Court all take an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. But who wins the "Struggle" could very well determine if the United States will continue to operate as a Republic, or if we will be governed by a ruler.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/18/weekinreview/baker.html?ref=weekinreview