Hey, Matt? The quote you pulled is not from the "bottom" of the NYT piece. It was from paragraph FOUR. Can't you report anything honestly?

Second, please explain how a modest increase in taxes for the wealthiest 1% of Americans will "destroy the economy." Can't wait.

Simple.....they hate Capitalism!!

It's part of the oath we take when we pledge loyalty to Jeneane Garofalo. At all times we pledge to kill babies and ruin the economy. We failed miserably during the Clinton administration as the economy improved and abortions went down.

Ben Stein (an economist himself) left O'reilly speechless (maybe a first) in responding to Bill's query as to why he (O'reilly) should pay more taxes.

Stein said that the "wealthy" enjoy good police protection in this country otherwise the "poor" would jump the fence, murder them, & steal what they own.

( don't believe the stats? go research yourself)

http://www.irs.gov

The top 1% pay 34.27% of all income taxes
The top 5% pay 54.36% of all income taxes
The top 10% pay 65.84% of all income taxes
The top 25% pay 83.88% of all income taxes
The top 50% pay 96.54% of all income taxes

The bottom 50%? pay 3.46% of all income taxes.

The top 1% is paying nearly ten times more federal income taxes than the bottom 50%!

The top 1% earns 16.77% of all income
The top 5% earns 31.18% of all the income
The top 10% earns 42.36% of all the income
the top 25% earns 64.86% of all the income
the top 50% earns 86.01% of all the income

Interesting... what is the liberal's version of
a fair share? 100%?

When 75% of the American population is only paying
16.12% and the top 25% paying 83.88% of the taxes,
how can our friends on the left fairly claim that
the top 25% of the tax bracket are not paying
thier fair share...

Okay, everybody, time for a little federal tax primer. Ready?

According to Ken's numbers...gee whiz, those rich folks are certainly getting hosed, aren't they? Why, poor people don't pay ANYTHING, really, do they?

Of course, Ken, in order to stay honest, would have to factor in a few things. Like, say, payroll taxes. You know, Social Security, Medicare...those annoying little charges that appear only on the paystubs of us workin' folk.

Now, I'm sure you're saying to yourself, "Cyber, you ass, Ken already factored in those numbers." To which I reply, "No he didn't. Ask him."

That's not to mention a few other little ditties the poor folk pay along with everyone else (though much more so): county and state taxes (including sales taxes), payments into pension plans, onerous health insurance premiums, gasoline taxes, cigarette taxes...these (and more) are ALL things that poor people pay in far, far higher numbers than their well-to-do counterparts.

So when asked to buy the "only the rich pay taxes" line of BS, here's a tip: Don't.

No less a capitalist than Warren Buffet recently pointed out the fallacy in Ken's argument. He determined that he paid far less in taxes as a percentage of his income than the clerks who work for him. And he uses no tax avoidance strategies to mitigate his obligation.

Give this argument a decent burial. The Bush tax cuts were skewed in favor of the wealthy, income disparity is on the rise and middle class Americans will use the ballot box to correct this trend. In this case, greed is very short sighted.

When 75% of the American population is only paying
16.12% and the top 25% paying 83.88% of the taxes,
how can our friends on the left fairly claim that
the top 25% of the tax bracket are not paying
thier fair share...

You left out half of the statistics. What percentage of total income do the top 25% make? It's a lot more than the bottom 75%.

What it comes down to is this Ken; the left believes in the re-distribution of wealth...no doubt. Wealth that is acquired by those that are willing to put their juevos on the line in search of that wealth.

Those that critisize the cutting of taxes most likely won't see much of a gain due to their innate inability to grasp the concept of "the rich keep getting richer", and why might one ask, because typically those that sit around bitching and moaning that they don't make enough money are most often liberals with the "entitlement mentality" and refuse to "seek the treasure" for fear that it won't be there.
In short, have you ever known a succesful businessman that didn't have juevos?

Cyberactor, BS and Thrower are perfect examples of not having juevos...sorry but it's true.

Cyber and BS don't work and I'm not sure about Thrower, but odds are good that he's not employed.

Everyone who gets wealthy in this country, including you and me Navydad, does it based on the labor and consumption of others. If we become so inthralled with our own brilliance that we forget that, the voting public brings us back to reality.

We can argue about income redistribution until the cows come in but the voting public will make the final call. This issue is a huge loser for Republicans, and you ignore it at your peril. Lou Dobbs is beating you to death on this and recognition of the danger of income inequality is growing. Have you ever known the wealthy to riot?

And contrary to your theory my friend, I have worked long and hard beginning with my middle teen years when my peers were content to enjoy adolescence and I am very comfortably situated. I only hope my kids have the same chance to succeed on their own without my help.

“The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.”

Thomas Jefferson quotes (American 3rd US President (1801-09). Author of the Declaration of Independence. 1762-1826)

Here's a question I constantly grapple with: how much tax should a person pay in order to obtain access to a necessity? And what constitutes a necessity? Said in another way, what constitutes a disposable income? And what obligations does one have on the part of their income that is defined as disposable as opposed to that part which is not? Or should they be exactly the same? I'm not talking just federal taxes, either. I'm talking all taxes, in whatever form they are applied. After all, once the money is taken out of your hands, how much does it really matter whose hands it ends up in?

Note that I'm speaking in the simplest of terms here. Of course it matters whose hands your taxes end up in, and why. But that only serves to indicate that not all taxes, and thus not all tax CUTS, should be considered as if they are somehow equally good or bad, effective or ineffective.

Apart from that, how do you think disposable income should impact the accumulation of wealth across generations? This is a particularly big question for me. On the one hand, it seems reasonable to expect that you should be able to benefit from the success of your parents, grandparents, or whatever. But on the other hand, that concept runs against the grain of the whole American experience -- the idea that everyone has the opportunity to get ahead depending upon their own ability, hard work, and ingenuity rather than birthright. How do you balance those two concepts?

The proposal is for people who earn more than half a million dolllars per year ($500,000).

Every patriotic American earning $500 large per year should be more than willing to increase their tides to our community.

Our church freely asks us for 10% tiding.

So, are our republican friends patriotic? Do they REALLLY want to help America?

IMHO if you make this kind of $$$ you can and should be expected to carry a larger burden than a person who makes hundreds of thousands of dollars less.

How about all of these posters here? Are you going to contribute more? I'd be happy to make $500k per year and pay my fair share.

-Joe

Thrower

Congrats on your successful life..I mean it wholeheartedly!!

"Everyone who gets wealthy in this country, including you and me Navydad, does it based on the labor and consumption of others. If we become so inthralled with our own brilliance that we forget that, the voting public brings us back to reality."

This may be the problem Thrower. The voting public is so ignorant when it comes to $ that they typically cast their vote based on what they hear from the Daily Show and Lou Dobbs who typically only has around 800,000 viewers, as compared to the one you hate Bill O at almost
2,000,000 viewers. (I'm not pickin on ya here, just stating facts) Also, the viewer demographics with Lou Dobbs is substantially older than that of the Daily Show and guess what, the Daily Show is where the next voting generation is getting their news...it's scary, don't ya agree

"Have you ever known the wealthy to riot?"

No, we move our corporations to Nevada so we don't need to riot. Just a joke...but true.

As far as "income inequality" goes, this is a myth that is perpetuated by the left to underscore the need for entitlement programs and affimative action, and to prop-up ingnorance in our society rather than dispel it.

For example: If this were true, why would African American home ownership be up by over 30% with over a 50% ownership rate?
Additionally, African American small biz ownership is up by 45 percent nationwide (U.S. Census). The number of Hispanic-owned businesses grew 31 percent nationwide during the same period.

So, I have a difficult time buying that the voting public can bring us down to reality when (a) the voting public is so ill-informed politically and (b) the voting public is becoming more affluent and educated at the fastest rate in the history of America. An interesting dichotomy to say the least in which the youth are liberal and gullible and grow more conservative and rational with age.

It's also a fact that the Dems in this country have been running much further to the right in hopes of winning the minds of the progressive youth by flat out lying about certain issues such as their policy to redeploy our troops, when there is no way in hell, that they can impose their will on President Bush. I'm not saying the Republicans don't do it to, just far less and not in such a deceitful manner.

We agree on this more than you may think Navydad. I do not believe in income "equality." If the most productive people aren't adequately rewarded for risk and effort, there goes productivity. I am perfectly fine with people becoming very wealthy. In fact, the example they set motivates others to strive to do the same.

But I do think the Home Depot CEO who received $200 million for driving down company value was overpaid, and the person who serves my chili at Wendy's is underpaid. Bad boards of directors and cheap illegal immigrant labor are the culprits but people will look to politics for a solution.

I don't like either Lou Dobbs or Bill O'Reilly, the former because he is simplistic in his thinking and the latter because he is a fraud. I think the Daily Show is clever, but I don't want my kids getting their facts there either. I think long term people vote their interests and the perception that many have that they are falling behind will cause them to vote for change. That's what I see coming and it does not bode well for Republicans.

I also agree with you that the Democrats are running to the middle, but that is because the center has been abandoned by George W. Bush.

Ricorun,

I know we’ve had this conversation before, but I’ll weigh in once again on the idea of confiscatory taxation upon the death of a taxpayer is somehow based on the founding principles of this nation.

You write that we Americans rejected the imperial class concept by adopting a system that rewards individualism, ingenuity and self-determination. While you are quite right in this assessment you arbitrarily draw a line at the point where the fruit of a person’s lifetime labors are passed from one to the next in a linier generational fashion. To take this to its illogical conclusion; why stop at confiscating a person’s wealth being bequeathed to that person’s children? Why not confiscate it from the spouse? After all, just because I married a lawyer doesn’t indicate that I’ve done anything to deserve the fruits of her labor after she passes on (Which will be long after me if God has any sense of justice).

And with the “idea that everyone has the opportunity to get ahead depending upon their own ability, hard work, and ingenuity rather than birthright” mantra, why not have the government insist that my wife spends all of her considerable assets on herself? After all, our daughter shouldn’t have access to the assets she didn’t earn by the sweat of her own brow. She should attend a public school in the poorest part of town and wear clothing she receives in the form of government sponsored gifts until she earns her own way, correct?

Obviously, that’s absurd, but no more absurd than the claim that my brothers and I should have to turn over to the government a large portion of my father’s estate because he didn’t have the good sense to not die while still being a taxpayer. The wealth a person earns during a lifetime spent in labor belongs to that person to dispense as that person sees fit. Conrad Hilton left a considerable fortune to his heirs, who are you to decide that they didn’t deserve it?

Now, as to the idea that the wealthy should pay more, in a geometric progression when compared to the middle-class or, most certainly the poor, that sir, is an indisputable fact! The protections and advantages this country offers are the very reason the wealthy are, well, wealthy! For this the rich owe a greater debt in monetary terms than their less wealthy counterparts. I don’t think anyone disputes this. Where we do have a problem is that each time a new debt is incurred, the same people are asked again to dig deeper and pay for it. Not out of a sense of loyalty to our opportunities, but because the despicable bastards dare to have more than the people who want it.

Joe wants the taxation of the rich to be viewed as tithing, which his church freely asks of its parishioners. And these same parishioners freely give that and more. (other than that point I cannot tell what Joe is proposing). Fine, make paying more as voluntary as it is in Joe’s church; time for Teddy to ante up; John eFfen Kerry didn’t earn his money, into the coffers it goes. Along with the assets of everyone that thinks the rich don’t pay enough.

Right now, I've got to make dinner for my wife, lest she cut me out of her will.

Bane..hear...hear! Well said.

joe- of course not. Why should they contribute a fair share?

i mean they export our jobs, they import illegals to do the other jobs. And all the while make money by exploiting the illegals and citizens of 3rd world countries. Oh then rake teh $ on the products coming back in. Pretty good Racket if you ask me.

Besides they pay the same for a Hundai as you and I. amazing huh? The top of the pyramid reaps all the benifits of all classes. Yeah get them to drop 1/10 of their $ on America...nah- they would never have an interest in INVESTING in the country that facilitated their wealth. why should they...it's only America.

Funny thing about the rich and greedy- they don't feel the need to put back into America. You know keep the country safe and secure...but i guess they prefer to invenst in Iraqi citizens. Oh and that in itself is pretty smart. Send the US tax dollars to Irawi citizens then kill them. Smeone in Washington has their script working like a charm.

The new motto of the right: "We put Iraq 1st"..now how is it the dems are destroying the economy again?

BS

"Yeah get them to drop 1/10 of their $ on America...nah- they would never have an interest in INVESTING in the country that facilitated their wealth. why should they...it's only America."

Due to the lack of an educated workforce pool....BS, need I say anymore. Just look at your post.

How about all of these posters here? Are you going to contribute more? I'd be happy to make $500k per year and pay my fair share.

-Joe

Posted by: -Joe at January 9, 2007 07:45 PM

Just to keep things in perspective,(on a good year I make 90k, on a bad year I make 40k).

That being said, Joe I DON"T WANT OR NEED someone elses money, if my health fails my family will provide for me(the way it used to be). If they cannot provide for me there are many charities & help org. that will help out. If I die from lack of help, then God help those that ignored the need!

You say "fair share" Joe, well what is that? Who decides it? Is it taking away a persons freedom to live as a selfish prick? I don't want to live in a world that forces people into anything! How about Joe, if we reinstate the draft and you or your children are forced to go fight in a war you may not believe in! You people talk big, but when these "FORCES" force you to join the military or give 1/2 your income to everyone else(not whom you decide to give it to), you will whine & complain like there is no tommorrow.

Joe, (and you can quote me on this), If I am ever making 500k a year, I guarantee at least 1/2(if not more) of my income will go to TAXES 1st, and then every charity & ministry I DEAM WORTHY OF MY(MINE, MINE, MINE) hard earned monies. I will not be told that I need to pay more for JOE BLOW living down the street drinking & beating his wife & kids, knowing all the while the government will take care of them.

BS

"Yeah get them to drop 1/10 of their $ on America...nah- they would never have an interest in INVESTING in the country that facilitated their wealth. why should they...it's only America."

The rich in this country put billions upon billions into other needier countries, charities, ministries, oh yah and even our own country! We DO NOT NEED TO STEAL MORE OF THIER MONEY! If they want to give it FREELY, good, if not then they'll die a poor old, lonely scrooge. IT IS THIER CHOICE...........PERIOD! That is freedom & capitalism. Get over it....you socialists!

bear: "if my health fails my family will provide for me(the way it used to be). If they cannot provide for me there are many charities & help org. that will help out. If I die from lack of help, then God help those that ignored the need!"

hey- so why no thread on your buddy Arnie? huh Mark/ Matt ?

USMC seems to disagree with the righty from california.

Truth be told i voted for Arnie...no applause needed. Man glad someone on the right has his brain on his shoulders where it belongs.

oddly though- any one notice the timing AFTER his little ski accident?

Hi BearmanUSMC (You Suckers Missed Christmas)

Glad to see you weigh in in my comment

1st. I spent 2years 7months and 11 days 'in country'.

2nd. You are a Marine or pretending to be one. Let me ask you this? Would you leave your brother on the field in the dirt?

3rd. I've been a small business man for more than 20 years and everyone who knows me knows two things: 1) Joe only hires Vets. 2) Joe pays his people well.

If you don't have it in you to help your bother then you have problems.... but then again Marines were never known for their mental capacity *JK*

And yes, my corporations are Nevada based. I just don't believe in War and Globalization.

-Joe

First off, let me thank BS & Joe for their insightful B.S.

Hi BearmanUSMC (You Suckers Missed Christmas)

Is that directed at all Marines Joe? Are we suckers for missing Christmas? I didn't miss Christmas!

Glad to see you weigh in in my comment

No you aren't! Quit lying, if your glad, you would have responded with other than disdain for our military men/women!!!

1st. I spent 2years 7months and 11 days 'in country'.

WTF does that mean? I may be a marine & slow(in your condescending eyes), but that makes little to NO sense!

2nd. You are a Marine or pretending to be one. Let me ask you this? Would you leave your brother on the field in the dirt?

I pretended up till high school graduation, then I joined up after the Insane one invaded Kuwait(wow, go figure, I wanted to help my brothers)!

3rd. I've been a small business man for more than 20 years and everyone who knows me knows two things: 1) Joe only hires Vets. 2) Joe pays his people well.

And this is supposed to do what.......... I'd pat you on the back if I could. So wouldn't the poor man that hasn't served in the military call be offended at your prejudices?

I'm actually on my 3rd SUCCESSFUL business & I hire anybody that wants to work hard to get ahead in life. The 1st two businesses are thriving and making their current owners quite comfortable.
*pat myself on the back*

If you don't have it in you to help your bother then you have problems.... but then again Marines were never known for their mental capacity *JK*

O.K., so twice now you have demeaned the USMC and it's brave! Thank you for portraying your true colors, it never fails here on the blog sites, seeing the the hypocrisy of some. Of course tommorrow you'll be heralding our brave to save face amongst the brethren!

In your shortsighted response about me helping my brother.........What would you call that whole paragraph about what I'd do if I was making 500k a year? Do you take time to read posts or are you illiterate. By the way, 30% of my net income goes to my church, ministries in Haiti, liberia, and other charitable organizations! And yes my brother(the one that did 3 tours in afghanistan, & Iraq) knows without a shadow of a doubt that I'd help him if in my power to do so. You really should take your condescention somewhere else!

And yes, my corporations are Nevada based. I just don't believe in War and Globalization.

Is that for TAX break purposes Joe???

-Joe

Posted by: -Joe at January 9, 2007 11:26 PM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hey BearmanUSMC

I'm sorry that you don't get it. So let me explain for you.

USMC = You Suckers Missed Christmas
USArmy = Uncle Sam Ain't Relesed Me Yet
*JK* = Just Kidding
in-Country = Viet Nam

BTW, I never knew of a Marine who left another marine. In the bush, either all the marines came out or none of the marines came out.

Get some looser underwear and stop being soft as a twinkie.

OoooRah

Marines are just a holding force until the Army shows up.

No, actually I'm have Nevada Corporations since I live here and there was no sense in paying franchise fees in DE.

And I hire Vet's becuase I know exactly what I'm getting and they are my brothers, each and every one of them and I only hope and wish I could hire them all.

Did you know, returning vets get limited care at the VA? Does that make you proud of this president?

-Joe

BearmanUSMC

We are getting a bit off topic here.

The topic is "Why Do I, as a Democrat, Want to Destroy The Economy.

My point is. I do okay, but I don't make $500+ large a year. I have no problem in paying my fair share of taxes and have never ever instructed my accountant to find a way to screw the government. Last year I paid almost $50k to the IRS and probably a bit more this year. HOWEVER, if I had to pay .5% or 1% more for America, well then..... that is what we called a no-brainer in the Army and still do today.

I don't want to destroy the economy, I love this country, I've volunteered and fought for this country and I take offense when people claim that I'm not "for" this country becuase I don't agree with them politically. Anyone who questions my loyalty or devotion to this county can go .... themselves. I go out of my way to support this country, by purchasing absolutely as much as I can that is Made in America, and I let the merchants where I do business know that I prefer American products. We conduct ouselves and our businesses in a manner that supports and promotes our country.

I only hope that you, my brother in arms, do the same. I have all the respect in the world for the Marines, albiet, they are a strange tribe.

Peace
-Joe

The Republican Congress and Republican Administration were borrowing billions from the Chinese and you accuse Democrats of harming our future economy.

As for repealing the tax breaks on the top 1% and big oil give me a break. Our kids are over in Iraq dying and Necons are sniveling over a few pieces of silver that would help to pay for better equipment. Howard Stern which is no friend of the administration just got a $40 million bonus from Sirrus radio. This is on top of his regular multi-million pay. I think he can afford to pay a little extra in taxes. People like Trump and Stern don't do what they do just for money.

Necons are always harping on Religious values, but try to squeeze a dime out of them in order to not just help the troops but also make a monetary sacrifice for the troops they squeal like a pig. Heaven knows it is not the children of the top 1% dying in this war.

Hey BearmanUSMC

I'm sorry that you don't get it. So let me explain for you.

USMC = You Suckers Missed Christmas(never heard that one before Joe, did you make that one up all by yourself?)

USArmy = Uncle Sam Ain't Released Me Yet
*JK* = Just Kidding(Really????sarcasm off)
in-Country = Viet Nam(wouldn't have known that, that was WAYYYYYY before my time. Thanks for the info.)

BTW, I never knew of a Marine who left another marine. In the bush, either all the marines came out or none of the marines came out.

Is that an accusation Joe? I don't think I ever said or insinuated that I would leave a brother behind. Contrary as a matter of fact!!!

Get some looser underwear and stop being soft as a twinkie. (Soft & Loose? I'll chalk that up to your dry sense of humor Joe)!

OoooRah!

(isn't it hooah Joe?)

Marines are just a holding force until the Army shows up.(Yah that's what my brother said also, and since he served in 101st, they have done 5 tours as of yet, and lost many brothers, I respect them immensly. Can't say I agree with you guys though, neither do the statistics)!

No, actually I'm have Nevada Corporations since I live here and there was no sense in paying franchise fees in DE.

(So be it, I was just inquiring, not accusing)!

And I hire Vet's becuase I know exactly what I'm getting and they are my brothers, each and every one of them and I only hope and wish I could hire them all.(That's good to know, you have a SOFT heart that way Joe, good for you)!

Did you know, returning vets get limited care at the VA? Does that make you proud of this president?

I know that I'm the chaplain of DAV ch. 119 & a life member. I also know that this administration has done more for vets than Clinton & Bush seniors admin. combined. Have they done enough? No, but I don't judge on partisan politics and media hype!

-Joe

Posted by: -Joe at January 10, 2007 03:17 AM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BearmanUSMC

We are getting a bit off topic here.

(I don't think I ever got off topic Joe).

The topic is "Why Do I, as a Democrat, Want to Destroy The Economy.(I never made that my topic Joe, I responded to things you and Bill were saying. I never even said I agreed with the topic posters statement. Of course I feel he is speaking of democratic leadership, not the little guy like you & I)!

My point is. I do okay, but I don't make $500+ large a year. I have no problem in paying my fair share of taxes and have never ever instructed my accountant to find a way to screw the government. Last year I paid almost $50k to the IRS and probably a bit more this year. HOWEVER, if I had to pay .5% or 1% more for America, well then..... that is what we called a no-brainer in the Army and still do today.

Yah, that is a no brainer! You see, we live in a free country(that was my point Joe), and if the majority decides the rich need to pay more in taxes(and that will trickle down to you & I Joe), then so be it. I feel like the rich are doing their fair share(all of the rich? Hell no!), and I'm not into controlling their every move & act! Then it is no longer a free country!!!

I don't want to destroy the economy, I love this country, I've volunteered and fought for this country and I take offense when people claim that I'm not "for" this country becuase I don't agree with them politically. Anyone who questions my loyalty or devotion to this county can go .... themselves. I go out of my way to support this country, by purchasing absolutely as much as I can that is Made in America, and I let the merchants where I do business know that I prefer American products. We conduct ouselves and our businesses in a manner that supports and promotes our country.

Like I said earlier Joe, I think you are personalizing the posters comment more than it is meant to be. But then again, maybe you do want to destroy the economy & you just don't really understand it. Who knows.......I won't claim to, I don't know you Joe!

I only hope that you, my brother in arms, do the same. I have all the respect in the world for the Marines, albiet, they are a strange tribe.

Peace
-Joe

Posted by: -Joe at January 10, 2007 03:58 AM

Hmmmmmmm............well, I guess I could expect all the Marine puns & comments from an 18 yr. old that actually respected us, but from a vietnam era vet? I have my reservations that you respect our strange tribe Joe, but so be it! As to how I conduct my business, I will do what is best for the business to make it thrive and pay for itself because in the long run that is what helps our vets, children, wives, sick & elderly etc. etc. etc. & I'm sure all my vet buddies support me in that!!!

Bear- "I will do what is best for the business to make it thrive and pay for itself because in the long run that is what helps our vets, children, wives, sick & elderly etc. etc. etc. & I'm sure all my vet buddies support me in that!!!"

you must be kidding me. I agree with you that we need the best fo veterans. But apparently W doesn't:

"Medical research cutbacks. The President's budget cuts funding for VA medical and prosthetic research by $50 million from the Fiscal Year 2004 budget approved by Congress - translating into the loss of 149 projects. The VA Medical Research function funds research into development of new prosthetic technologies, treatment of mental illness, prevention of cancer, effects of pathogen exposure, and other important efforts. The President's proposal would set funding back six years - to Fiscal Year 1999 levels."

http://democrats.senate.gov/dpc/dpc-new.cfm?doc_name=fs-108-2-39

Gee i guess all those seriously wounded (fortunate enough to live and come home) from Iraq with missing legs and arms can just thank you Bear...yes..thank you for improving your business.

As a disabled vet myself- i wil tell you. You should be ashamed of your political head. What a discrace to America and those that serve and protect our great nation. Shame on you and your selfish arrogant crippling of funds to the American Veteran.

BS,
Your "source" is from 2004. It was written in such a way that only the feeble minded would read it as a "budget cut."

Read it again, [..] "cuts funding [] from the [] budget approved by Congress." Congress approved a 9% increase; the Administration submitted a 7.8% increase.

There are no budget cut here; the Budget for 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007 include increases for vets, and for research.

There is shame here; shame on you for misrepresenting the truth. The President's budgets increased funding for Vets.

Hi Bane,

I don't know where you get your health care from but mine comes exclusively from the VA. The good and the bad.

The good = at least I've got something

The bad = you dr has a limited arsenal he can choose from for your meds. If the meds give you bad side effects - cowboy up.

It used to be a literal butcher shop at the VA medical facilities. You don't want to hear this, but Pres. Clinton addresesed the issue and now, here in Reno, we have a VA facility which is world class. When I had my heart attack, I really felt I had superior care.

The real world problem is funding is level while demand increased expontially due to the War. So when it used to take me 5-8 weeks to get an appoint to see a Doc. I am now told to wait until it gets bad and then come in thru the emergency room.

Also, the cost of meds has gone up 300% since 2000, and we now pay a fee for each Doc we see. It's not much and I'm happy to pay it but the realitiy is that there are Vets - guys who put their nutz on the line for you and me - who can't even afford this minimal amount. Here in Reno we have a vet outreach and 'we take care of our own' because no one is going to take care of Vets like other vets!

Don't believe me? Go out in front of your local VAMC and ask the guys/gals coming out.

-Joe

Hey Joe (i love saying that ;-) )

hey- the Reno VA totally impressed me. I used to go IN OKC (and worked their) But later lived near Reno- between '02 and '05. The VAMC there went from another PITA bureaucracy to a streamlined VA center. I think they got a new dirctor in that time. After which they really got their "thing" together.

And thank you- for helping the vets there in need. Good for you...good for them too.

There is shame here; shame on you for misrepresenting the truth. The President's budgets increased funding for Vets.

Posted by: Bane of Liberals' Existence at January 10, 2007 04:03 PM

Thank you Bane, that bears repeating!

Hey Joe & Bill, Take your dissatisfication with the health care at your VA hosp. and translate that to a global or countrywide health care system. Will you guys ever be thankful for what you get or will it never be enough(That being said, I get my health care from VA in Palo Alto & Livermore, Ca.), and when I can afford it I get it from my PRIVATE doctors!

Bear tahnk you. my point exactly- WHEN YOU CAN AFFORD It.

gee bear, imagine if you couldn't and didn't ahve VA. Imagine a nation, the grreatest on earth with millions of people that- "can't afford it".

Bear, if only you'd listen to yourself sometimes and see the truth behind your facade. America needs you Bear. c'mon over.

Joe,
You are correct that the VA hospitals have improved dramatically since 1997 when the Senate appropriated an increase in funding to bring the VA delivery services into the 20th Century. Since then, the bills in the House and the Senate have increased spending on Vets every year, and has meet or exceeded both Administration’s budget requests.

I would suggest that you read the actual budget proposal or the summary provided by the Senate Committee on Veterans Affairs before commenting on the lack of support from the current Administration for Veterans costs and remunerations.

My point is, and always has been, that reducing an increase to a smaller increase is not a “cut.” There are notations in the press release that indicate alternative funding sources which had been underutilized and are now expected to take responsibility for funding. Note, a reduction in one source of funding offset by another is also not a cut.

In case you missed my bio a few months back; I’m a government fiscal analyst, I don’t deal in VA, but I am well versed in Fund Accounting.

Livermore? When you get your Rx filled, look for a pharmacist by the name of Joe Kmet, tell him I said hello.

Livermore? When you get your Rx filled, look for a pharmacist by the name of Joe Kmet, tell him I said hello.

Posted by: Bane of Liberals' Existence at January 10, 2007 07:37 PM

I'm not their often Bane, I'm fortunate that my disabilities can be lived with, then again they are virtualy untreatable also! Oh well, I guess my life is in HIS hands! There are medications for my disability, but I choose not to use them, since they are about as debilitating as the disability itself!

Bill, dream on man! It's all about choice, that's all!

Bane,

Sorry, I've been otherwise occupied for the last few days. But if it's not too late I'd like to respond to the two points you made in your response to me.

The first had to do with lines, and your contention that I have drawn them arbitrarily between generations. First of all, from a purely biological perspective, there is no relation between your mother and father (not usually anyway, lol!). On the other hand, there are essentially no cases where a progeny from a sexual union has resulted in anything but a combination of genes from one father and one mother. From a social/legal perspective, however, there are myriad levels of relationships. For one thing, and even in this country, the legal right of inheritance of a progeny resulting from the biological union between a man and a woman was itself dependent upon the level of legality of the relationship between the progeny's parents. In other words, if you were born out of wedlock you were pretty much SOL. From a biological perspective, there is no distinction. From a legal/social perspective, it makes all the difference in the world. So which line is arbitrary? And that doesn't even take into consideration adoption. Weirdly, adopted kids have often taken legal precedence over natural kids born out of wedlock.

Also from a purely biological perspective, as long as there are more than two alleles for at least one gene (assuming the gene in question is not situated on the X or Y chromosome), your aunt or uncle on either side bears more genetic similarity to your mother or father than you do. Nonetheless, the whole notion of your uncle or aunt inheriting what your mother or father left is totally unconscionable -- at least nowadays, in our society. It wasn't always so in all societies. So again, which line is arbitrary?

Thus, unless you can prove to me that modern US society weighs the biological facts of the strength of your association with your parents so heavily as to completely exclude the legal facts of your association with your parents, I can only conclude that whatever line anyone draws is arbitrary to one extent or another. My advice is not to even try, because you'd just be spinning your wheels. The fact is, the laws of any society are drawn up in light of what that society wishes to achieve for itself. And that goes for the laws of inheritance as well. And thus, I think I think my point about taxation being based on the founding principles of our nation are very much valid.

But I'm not a purist about it, no matter how absurdly you attempt to take my argument to its logical conclusion. Unfortunately, I find myself always trying to argue in technicolor (or at least shades of gray) against the black/white thinkers that are so common, at least on this site. That puts me at a disadvantage because I can't argue unconditionally for one side versus the other. The fact is, I don't favor a 100% inheritance tax (or "death tax", or whatever you want to call it) in all cases, nor on any level regardless of case. But at the same time I don't favor none at all in all situations. Those are the extremes. Regardless of how you feel about them you should recognize them as such. And personally, I don't support either extreme, no matter how you attempt to portray my position.

The fact is, I personally value the concepts of both continuity and opportunity. But I also appreciate that one without the other leads to excess. Continuity without opportunity is a prescription for some kind of "divine right" form of government. Similarly, opportunity without some kind of continuity is a prescription for some kind of "socialist" government. To me, the optimal form of government is somewhere in between.

The second point has to do with the notion of a graduated tax. In that regard I kind of assume that you share similar concerns. But you say this about that: "Now, as to the idea that the wealthy should pay more, in a geometric progression when compared to the middle-class or, most certainly the poor, that sir, is an indisputable fact!" But it obviously isn't an indisputable fact. Many of the same people that argue against the notion of any sort of inheritance/death tax also argue against the notion of any sort of graduated tax based on income or any other sort of accumulated wealth, be it federal, state or locally based. But these are the kinds of nuances that I think should be the focus of discussion, rather than the absurdly polarized, black/white, one-dimensional cartoon contentions that so often fill most comments.

Ricorun,

I studied biology in collage, I became quite adept at the causation of the multigenerational, and extra-generational relationships. I know, as a point of fact, that Gregor Mendel was a liar and a fraud. But, whisky tango foxtrot does that have to do with the subject at hand?

Your post stated

“On the one hand, it seems reasonable to expect that you should be able to benefit from the success of your parents, grandparents, or whatever. But on the other hand, that concept runs against the grain of the whole American experience -- the idea that everyone has the opportunity to get ahead depending upon their own ability, hard work, and ingenuity rather than birthright.”

My response was directed at the arbitrary linier generational nature of the “inheritance”.

Let’s discuss the legality of inheritance; within all 50 States and territories of the United States, in the absence of any directive, the estate passes according to the rules of Heirs-at-law; the community property automatically passes to the surviving spouse. Those assets which, by chain of title are outside of the community property are passed to the immediate family equally, including the spouse. The estate is subject to probate when it meets a monetary value established by law.

With a will or other directive, the estate passes to whoever is indicated subject to probate.

Therefore class, the Common Law directives which gave blood relatives priority over spouses; legitimate over illegitimate; or heir of title as in Duke or Prince over lesser titled children don’t apply. Estate may pass entirely to a spouse (that did nothing whatever to earn it) despite the number or blood relationship of the children, stepchildren, grandchildren, adopted children or cartoon children; es la lay!

But all that is meaningless to the subject; that being is the government entitled to confiscate accumulated wealth before it is bequeathed to a person or persons that did not earn it by the sweat of their own brow. Is “earned” wealth as opposed to “inherited” wealth superior in the “American experience”? Or is dynastic familial wealth antithetical to our collective consciousness?

To answer that I posed the query to my wife; singularly the most logical person I know. Her answer enlightened me from a conservative, American, and legal standpoint; “Our founding as a nation was predicated on the idea that the government does not and should not have the authority to take our land, title, fortune or good name. We put rules in place to protect our citizens from an overreaching government.” It is we who decide the accumulation of wealth, not the government.

While I fully appreciate your thesis on “continuity and opportunity” I am obligated to point out that only in a Socialist Paradise like Cuba is there equal misery for all. Because my father worked very hard to provide a better life for his children, we grew up with opportunities that others did not enjoy; we learned the value of hard work, honesty, devotion, the Golden Rule. Although meager in condition and lacking any luxuries we were better equipped to handle the challenges life threw at us. Of the children; three of us are professionals and all of us have succeeded in our chosen fields. Any fiscal inheritance notwithstanding, money passed from one to an heir doesn’t guarantee unequal opportunity. Read carefully; my father's financial successes came after the children were adults.

Now, to the idea that graduated taxation is insupportable via the fiscal conservatives herein; poppycock! Is that too complicated?

”Many of the same people that argue […] against the notion of any sort of graduated tax based on income or any other sort of accumulated wealth,[]”.

John eFfen Kerry is “nuanced” as well, and I wouldn’t give his arguments the time of day. Your facts are always good; your conclusions sometimes … not so much.