$nbsp;

Is she relying on 'socialism'?

 
LOADING
Apr 18, 2008 - 04:05:05 CDT
By BRAD MILLS
Jamestown


In response to the letter from Alison Grotberg, "Thinly masked socialism," a reference to Barack Obama's political position, I have a few questions.

When Grotberg mailed her letter to the Tribune, did she drive on a public road to get it to the U.S. Post Office, or did she have them pick it up at her residence? Or did she e-mail it over the Internet that was started by the U.S. government?

Does she benefit in any way from law enforcement that keeps her safe or firefighters that come to her rescue if her house starts on fire? Does she benefit from a U.S. military that defends this country?

Have she and her family ever taken a vacation at a national or state park? Does she rely on a city sewer system and does she use rural or city supplied water? If she is involved with agriculture, does she or her family receive farm subsidies or CRP payments from the government?

If Grotberg benefits from anything I mentioned, she is relying on socialist programs to survive, to prosper and to enjoy life. If she hates socialism so much, she should move to a third world country with no roads, sewer or water, no law enforcement, and no Internet or postal service and see just how much of a great Republican conservative with "Rough Rider individualism" she can be then.

Furthermore, the GOP pushes its own version of socialism as well. They push religious socialism by trying to use government to force us to live by their religious beliefs and sexual standards they themselves violate, and they also push corporate socialism by taking our tax money and giving it away to corporations who ship our jobs to China and gouge us at the gas pump.

I understand why these right-wingers need to distract us. They and their party have nothing to offer America but endless war, national debt, hate, fear and division, corruption and endless lies. I hope they are as ready as I am for an election likely to be a catastrophe for the Republican party.
News > Opinion
   Printer friendly version
Is she relying on 'socialism'?
Comments

seven gone wrote on Apr 25, 2008 10:24 PM:

" fine then emil....close the factory, the rich who own it don't need the minions to make their money. oh wait, that's what's happening ... as everything is outsourced! the rich still get their money, and even more of it, as their bottom line improves. the minions get to sit on their duffs and complain. are you any further ahead? "

Emil Kashuntz wrote on Apr 25, 2008 9:38 PM:

" Razor, you bring up an interesting point that I have pondered. Are the rich a problem if they do not consume? If their money stays invested, and they are doing nothing with it but providing jobs by investing, you could make a good argument they are doing little harm. However, if they can pass it on to another generation to get a free ride that changes the picture. Now to the sticky part. If they are investing in circuses when what society really needs are more hospitals, then you have a different predicament. These people have take the resources of society and diverted them to a low priority need. Of course someone will come out screaming who are you to say, or the old "It's their money". If it was truely their money then why did they need the factory workers to make it? "

Rasmus wrote on Apr 25, 2008 9:35 PM:

" To Razor's Edge: All I know is that it is easier to bankrupt the poor than the rich. Many people I know are living paycheck to paycheck and they work for a living. They would not welcome a "federal sales tax" or whatever you want to call it. They know it would just be another way in addition to income tax to impoverish them further. Also consider what a federal sales tax would do to internet sales. No getting away from the Feds! Personally, I think that you should be able to earn $30K before State and Federal Income Taxes kick in. "

Razors Edge wrote on Apr 25, 2008 6:45 PM:

" Rasmus:

We already have taxes on food (sales tax), clothing (sales tax), transportation (sales tax when you buy a car), housing (property tax), fuel (gas tax), electricity (yup taxed. Look here http://www.atr.org/special/taxbites/electricity.html for more information), phone/cell phone (both taxed), etc.

You say sales tax is regressive, and I do agree. We could offset that by getting rid of the income tax (by the way Canada still has an income tax). This should (in theory) make it so that the poorer people pay about the same. When that rich person buys that million dollar yacht "for business" (AKA tax write off under current laws) they will pay that 6% state tax ($60,000) plus 15% or $150,000 in taxes on it. So they would add $210,000 to the government with no way to get "tax breaks" to get it back.

I'm just basing this all on peoples' arguments that "the rich take more than their fair share". If that's true then let's base it on how much someone consumes. If you say that won't work because the poor can't afford it then your argument goes out the window. You are taxing the "rich" solely based on their income, and NOT on what they use (the two do not automatically equal each other). You are also saying the rich DO pay for more than their fair share.

I personally wouldnt mind seeing a combination of the two with having an income tax on something like over a million dollars or something. "

Rasmus wrote on Apr 25, 2008 5:34 PM:

" vetter, Britain never had Dems or Repubs so it's not likely he ever said that, unless he was ribbing FDR.

Flat taxes are sales taxes and regressive. Canada has a sort of federal sales tax and many don't like it. The problem for the less well-to-do is that you have to pay on the basics of life: food, clothing, transportation, housing, fuel, electricity, phone, etc. There is less leftover for anything above and beyond the basics. If you're well-off, then why not support it? Hucklebee supports a "fair tax" or flat tax. "

Emil Kashuntz wrote on Apr 25, 2008 5:30 PM:

" Razor, there is merit to what you say. The Europeans have a consumption tax, makes sense. However, I am not sure it addresses the problem of everything percolating to the top. Many historians blame the 1929 depression mess on the fact that all the money went to the top. To correct the situation there had to be a mechanism to push it back into the hands of the common people. Newsweek has a good article by Paul Simonson regarding the current mess. "

VoR wrote on Apr 25, 2008 5:30 PM:

" Vetter, How interesting that Winston Churchill (a consummate politician) would make such an inflammatory statement regarding domestic American politics. Even more interesting considering the fact Democratic Presidents were in office during all of WW II. In case you didn't know it was U.S. involvement in the European theater that bolstered the British defense forces and ended Hitler's push across the continent. By the way you have to be at least 35 to run for President. So he must have been saying that every Democrat who ever held office was brainless. I'd like to look-up this quote. Where can I find it? "

mom-of-teens wrote on Apr 25, 2008 5:27 PM:

" To amused, I wouldn't want you to think that I directed that comment at YOU, as I "didn't put your name on it" It was a general comment ...... After a while, there just comes a time to agree to disagree and maybe that time is now.... The serenity prayer can apply to many people and many situations, it's universal; that's why it's great. To Vetter, welcome back my young republican friend.; I fail to see how having money AND a life filled with philanthropy makes me a "left wing extremist"; as I believe in a HEALTHY balance between capitalism and socialism, as I've stated many times now; it just proves that I actually walk the walk and don't just talk to talk. "

Amused wrote on Apr 25, 2008 5:02 PM:

" I'm all for a flat tax!
I am also for a "Boston Tea Party" of sorts to oust every person sitting in Congress right now! "

Amused wrote on Apr 25, 2008 4:59 PM:

" I do appologize to you Mom of Teens for that right there that I just said, I wouldn't want to seem uneducated, I do know that is the Serenity Prayer. "

Razors Edge wrote on Apr 25, 2008 4:57 PM:

" Wow, I stayed out of this discussion for a while and all of you want to chop each other's heads off. Settle down, and take a chill pill. Pounding your keyboard doesn't make it better. I can hear it from my house, and I live in the country. :P

Anyway, so you say the rich use more than their fair share, and the poor use little (and what started this discussion). What do you people think of a flat tax? The more you buy the more you pay. The rich use a lot so they pay a lot. The poor use little so they pay little. Since you pay it each time you buy something there aren't "tax breaks for the rich". The people who get paid under the table (IE in cash) also pay the tax. So what's wrong with it? Can't wait for these responses. "

Vetter wrote on Apr 25, 2008 4:28 PM:

" Conservatism cares for people far more than liberalism ever could. Conservatism is interested in results, and that means people becoming self-sufficient, learning about their potential as human beings, and setting out on a path to realize it.

I commend you Mom of teens for putting your money where your mouth is, however, that doesn't take from the fact that your a left wing extremist. "

Vetter wrote on Apr 25, 2008 4:19 PM:

" "If your 25 and not a democrat, you don't have a heart. If you're 35 and not a republican, you haven't any brains." --- Winston Churchill "

Amused wrote on Apr 25, 2008 4:10 PM:

" Mom of teens
Wow you totally rock! You just called me uneducated and poor and recited the alcoholic's creed without missing a beat! You go girl! "

mom-of-teens wrote on Apr 25, 2008 3:20 PM:

" To favorite quote, I LOVE that! Which is why I do the philanthropy that I do! I also love "God, grant me the serenity to accept the things [or people] I cannot change, the courage to change the things I CAN, and the WISDOM to know the difference!" "

favorite quote wrote on Apr 25, 2008 2:34 PM:

" "Life happens, but ultimately, life is whatever you make it."
....Mitch Anthony
"

mom-of-teens wrote on Apr 25, 2008 2:30 PM:

" Amused, no of COURSE not! That would have been too honest of you. Pretty obvious as your post was DIRECTLY after mine, but whatever; I really could care less! Perhaps you should get a second or third job and put yourself through school; then you wouldn't have time to post about things you know nothing about. Online editor, disregard my other post please, it WAS kinda rude; thanks! "

Amused wrote on Apr 25, 2008 12:39 PM:

" Ooh you better look out ljfrommin, your gonna get a type-lashing LOL
Emil- if the tree were diseased, I would deffinately cut it down :) "

ljfrommin wrote on Apr 25, 2008 11:54 AM:

" What's this 'freeloaders at the top' crap. the top 10% of income earners pay over 50% of our taxes. Yet we drive on the same roads, use the same postal system and go to the same schools.(which, if they don't use, they still have to pay for). Too bad we ever got away from the poll tax. If everyone's vote is the same, we should all have to pay the same to vote. nothing worse than freeloaders voting themselves a raise (yes, just like Congress!) "

Amused wrote on Apr 25, 2008 11:36 AM:

" Mom...Did I attach your name to my statement? You put yourself in the bed of braggers. This is truly a fun time watching all you bash each other- as I said, it's a hoot! If you were amused like me you wouldn't be so angry all the time. and Mama...As far as my neighbor it keeps life quite interesting watching to see what he will come up with next to cheat the system. Therefore I wouldn't want to move and give up the entertainment.


"

Emil Kashuntz wrote on Apr 25, 2008 11:19 AM:

" Dear Amused, I am going to plant an apple tree. If there is one, or perhaps two bad apples, and the rest are good, do you recommend cutting down the whole tree? "

MamaMia wrote on Apr 25, 2008 10:59 AM:

" Seven Gone: Thanks for the kind words. It's lonely here at the top. "

seven gone wrote on Apr 25, 2008 10:28 AM:

" oh mommy, you deserve a medal, you're such a noble, tolerant and benevolent soul ... now if you'd only learn to keep your comments and actions within your own universe and not expect everyone else by mandate to live up to your incredibly high standards ... "

MamaMia wrote on Apr 25, 2008 9:40 AM:

" Amused: I'm a Democrat and I used to live in a Republican neighborhood. It was real nice! Not a freeloader in sight for blocks. You'd love it! "

mom-of-teens wrote on Apr 25, 2008 9:19 AM:

" Amused, then maybe you shouldn't go around opening cans of worms by making comments like "never ever trust a bragger...." I wasn't bragging, I was adding credibility to my already credible argument. Can't handle the aftermath, then don't start something you can't handle finishing. As for the freeloading neighbor thing, I've had freeloaders in my life too. Do you honestly think that with all the time and money I have given, that I haven't been taken advantage of a time of two?? Doesn't make what I do any less important; it just makes the philanthropy I DO participate in that much more important to me and much more meaningful to those I choose to help. There is a BIG difference between giving away what you can afford and giving away EVERYTHING! Unfortunately with you all or nothing repubs, you miss that important point entirely, which is why I've supported a HEALTHY balance between socialism and capitalsim all along, which as you would see if my posts if you read them. "

BILL G-A-R-R wrote on Apr 25, 2008 9:04 AM:

" Is this man serious? Or seriously flawed? His words speak volumes....

The Hammer wrote on Apr 24, 2008 4:20 PM:
" Were NOT in a recession! Its a slowdown. G.W. Bush 4-23-08 That's straight from the source. CASE CLOSED''

The fact that anyone is believing anything thats coming out of this manic depressive Presidents mouth is terrifying. Who is this really? Jim S? Tater? You keep changing names. Why?
"

Amused wrote on Apr 25, 2008 9:00 AM:

" MamaMia
I don't think that would work out so well beings I'm not a Republican. "

Amused wrote on Apr 25, 2008 8:56 AM:

" Emil, My freeloading neighbor is on disability for being legally BLIND. Ahh but guess what, He has a camper, four wheelers, DRIVES a real nice SUV, and hunts every year. Imagine that. Again, I have a problem with the freeloaders. Not the "True" poor. You like Mom assume to know everyone's position from one statement. You really need to get over yourself. "

MamaMia wrote on Apr 25, 2008 8:48 AM:

" Amused: If your neighbor bothers you so much you need to move to a better neighborhood--perhaps a nice Republican cloth coat one. "

Emil Kashuntz wrote on Apr 25, 2008 8:38 AM:

" Who are the freeloaders? The math is pretty straight forward. The poor make up twenty percent of the population. Contrary to the party line, most of the poor work, and therefore contribute to the GDP. Although the poor make up twenty percent of the population, they consume only two percent of the GDP. Contrast that with the top one percent of the population. They make up once percent of the population, but consume 17 percent of the GDP. Some dinger will reply that that 1 percent pays more than their share of taxes. Well, perhaps in light of their share of the take, they should pay more. A lot of the people on the bottom are doing hard physical work, and producing the food we eat, and the cloths we wear. If a person in the top one percent does any physical work, it is voluntary. A large percent just live from inheritance, or under the wing of a rich benefactor. So why do we pick on the freeloader on the bottom, and ignore the freeloader on the top? Well who do you think has the best propaganda machine? "

Amused wrote on Apr 25, 2008 7:42 AM:

" Well you see mam, I don't comment much but I have been following since the 18th of April- I read that you have a serious problem with money people who you choose to label as Republicans. I know for a fact my neighbor is a third generation freeloader and that is my grip in life, but you people slamming each other constantly because each is absolutely sure the other doesnt contribute to the poor is a hoot. Like any of you really know.. "

dante wrote on Apr 25, 2008 7:09 AM:

" Hammer, you are a good soldier for the bush lies/wars/distortions. praise lord rove! have a nice weekend. "

mom-of-teens wrote on Apr 25, 2008 6:26 AM:

" To Amuzed, since you are just joining the conversation, I'll go easy on you. Vetter challenged me to "give $20 to someone on the street", "volunteer at a soup kitchen", and do all the things that she/he apparently does. I simply responded with a list of things that I DO to make my community and world a better place. If you were to go through and read all of Vetter's posts on basically every board she/he has posted on, you will see that she/he bashes Dems every chance she/he gets! I suggest educating yourself before you make such ridiculous comments. "

VoR wrote on Apr 24, 2008 10:55 PM:

" seven gone, Excellent rant. Since you agree that each of us has proven the other point, and since your point to me is that, Quoting you here, You know everything .

No, I cant do it. Youre making this too easy.
"

The Hammer wrote on Apr 24, 2008 10:45 PM:

" dante: You lefties are so smug. Just because this war on terrorism didnt go exactly perfect you think that we should cut and run like we were the French. Well you are wrong. We have made a commitment to the people of Iraq to defend there new democracy and protect the oil fields they need to survive. Why cant you Libs see that? You are so blinded by your hatred of our elected leaders and our patriotic troops that the reality of this escapes you.
"

Rasmus wrote on Apr 24, 2008 9:57 PM:

" To Razor's Edge: With the slim majority in the House and a split in the Senate, not much will get done by the Dems. Don't forget that Bush has his "signing statements" that apparently allow him to ignore any provision of any law passed. Bush is the President. Bush has a majority of the Supreme Court. Too bad that more Dems were not elected then Bush/Cheney could have been impeached and removed as they so richly deserve to be. (notice how I didn't bash you) "

Amused wrote on Apr 24, 2008 9:29 PM:

" Never, ever trust a bragger........... "

mom-of-teens wrote on Apr 24, 2008 9:20 PM:

" To Vetter, I don't bash Republicans any MORE than you bash Democrats. But since you brought it up yet AGAIN, yes the view is VERY good from the high horse, much better than YOUR view from the "cheap seats" I'm sure!! For your records, I have volunteered at the Ruth Myers house; I have bought Christmas presents for less fortunate families with children in Bismarck/Mandan, I participate in "fill the bus" drive every year to help with school supplies, I volunteered at the Abused Adult Resource center while in college, I have worked with the developmentally disabled, the elderly, and those stricken with cancer. My very CAREER ensures quality care for the elderly and disabled!! I donated money to habitat for humanity, have gone on mission trips to Africa, donated money to the Medcenter one burn clinic stationed in Iraq, and have taught my kids the concept of (to quote Suze Orman) "people first, then money, then things" Please don't insult me by asking me such ridiculous questions; it's pretty clear which one of us REALLY puts her money where her mouth is! "

News editor wrote on Apr 24, 2008 9:13 PM:

" VoR,

I can't tell you what's causing the punctuation issue, but I will forward your complaint to our technical people. It's probably a software glitch. Thanks for your patience. "

Razors Edge wrote on Apr 24, 2008 6:52 PM:

" Rasmus,

Name the person who said:

With record gas prices, record CEO pay packages, and record oil company profits, Speaker Hastert and the Majority Congress continue to give the American people empty rhetoric rather than join Democrats who are working to lower gas prices now.

Democrats have a commonsense plan to help bring down skyrocketing gas prices by cracking down on price gouging, rolling back the billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies, tax breaks and royalty relief given to big oil and gas companies, and increasing production of alternative fuels.

That was Pelosi 2 years ago. Who has the majority in Congress? Democrats. Ok hopefully you keep reading this before you bash me. I don't think the Democrats OR Republicans will help us out with oil. They don't control the stock market or speculation so what can they do? Only thing they can do is drop this stupid ethanol idea, and that's not going to happen. "

dante wrote on Apr 24, 2008 6:33 PM:

" HAMMER, right on, my friend. THE LEADER has spoken the facts and is THE WORD of truth and honor. not to mention the great singing and dancing he's been doing lately, too! "

VoR wrote on Apr 24, 2008 5:39 PM:

" Online Editor, Several of my recent posts on this and other boards as well have not contained the quotation marks apostrophes, commas and other punctuation marks as submitted. As you know, these are vital to presenting and organizing text as well as making their meaning clear. I have not made any changes in my word processing software. I would appreciate an explanation. VoR
"

REX wrote on Apr 24, 2008 5:21 PM:

" Emil, Pay attention next time. He said, "Mission accomplished". No wonder you're dissolusioned. You thought it would all wrap up like 30 minute sitcom. You must have missed the part where he said it could go on for years and years. Selective hearing I'd guess. "

seven gone wrote on Apr 24, 2008 5:01 PM:

" vor: and thank you for proving mine. like i said, you know everything, and nobody else has anything to contribute, unless they agree with you. or so you say.

as time passes, i can see that it's just pure bludgeoning of a point from whatever side anyway in these blogs. the poster with the most time to chatter, and the most clemency from the trib in having things posted on site is the one who seems to get the greatest say. nothing gets resolved. and the rest of us that have to work for a living get on with what we do, while people like you sit around and plan your day around cspan to get smarter. "

Rasmus wrote on Apr 24, 2008 4:43 PM:

" REX, you're right, it's not gradual. We're being gouged. Too bad we don't build our own, ND State-owned refineries here. The gas prices are causing inflation, recession, rising food prices, and dispair in the country. Meanwhile, Der Fuhrer is busy writing his "legacy" by talks with Mexico and Canada. Too busy to step in and stop speculation or even try! $116/barrel today for crude. No "bailouts" or "golden parachutes" for us! "

Emil Kashuntz wrote on Apr 24, 2008 4:39 PM:

" Hammer, remember when we won the war in Iraq five years ago. Bush stood on the deck of an aircraft carrier and told us we won, so it must be true. The soldiers have been waiting for the bus to pick them up for five years. Most of them died after we won the war. I would not believe Bush if said the sun was shinning. "

The Hammer wrote on Apr 24, 2008 4:20 PM:

" Were NOT in a recession! Its a slowdown. G.W. Bush 4-23-08 That's straight from the source. CASE CLOSED!
"

VoR wrote on Apr 24, 2008 4:10 PM:

" seven gone, Thank you for proving my point. All bluster, personal attacks and accusation, NO SUBSTANCE. why counterpoint?. Apparently you havent figured out what these boards are all about. By the way, for someone who doesnt care what I believe nor think, you sure spent a lot of your time and most of your intellect mischaracterizing my points and adding your own uninformed conjecture as to what I read, watch & drive. Now whos being delusional? P.S. You left out Keith Olbermann on MSNBC.
"

REX wrote on Apr 24, 2008 3:44 PM:

" Rasmus, It's called economic growth and change, a (usually) gradual process. 75% in 18 months is not "gradual". "

Rasmus wrote on Apr 24, 2008 2:15 PM:

" Rex, 1973? You're not blaming Nixon for the Arab Oil Embargo, are you? Or was it Ford? The last election must have really hurt to make you think that the Dems completely dominate Washington. Bush doesn't care about the rising gas prices, failing housing market, environment, and recession. Bush has done his damage at home and overseas. Gas prices are about where Cheney wants them. Too bad it will take more than two years to clean up "the messy playroom" left by Bush and the Repubs. Someone should have made them wear Pampers.

"They went off the rails. That's it. They took a majority that took 16 years to build and they destroyed it." April 16, 2008

-- Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, quoted by GQ, on what has happened to the Republican Party during the Bush years.

Another Repug whiner, and I quote Newt, "WHAAAAAAAAAAA!" "

seven gone wrote on Apr 24, 2008 1:43 PM:

" vor: why counterpoint? you're living in a delusional state, like bill garr. you only see what you want to see, and dismiss/marginalize any other opinion there. i don't care what you believe, nor what you think, if at all.

so go watch your cnn, hug some trees, say prayers to your little kent conrad pictures you carry in lockets, and give thanks for clinton, obama pelosi george soros et al. give thanks as a tree hugger for the ethanol movement that's not solved any energy crisis, but created a food one.
watch bill maher; drive around in your big pickup or suv (likely with a 5th wheel) and complain complain complain about anything and everything you see.

i don't think you can be happy unless you're complaining about something. so complain. whatever. "

Emil Kashuntz wrote on Apr 24, 2008 12:23 PM:

" Dear Michael Miller, I am sure you are not a racist, nor would you be against women. By the way who are you going to vote for? Could it be McCain? Do I understand correctly that the United States is a classless society? We all have an equal opportunity to be as poor as we want. We all have an equal opportunity to be as rich as we want, but those born with wealth and power just have a little more equality than the rest of us. Greed is what has made America great, it brought us slavery, share cropping, SUV's, Fox News, and a classless energy policy where every class pays the same amount ofor $3.54 cent gas. It is a wonderful free society where the rich man and the poor man can both buy as many congressmen as they like. So what if the poor guy has to put his purchase on a credit card? "

REX wrote on Apr 24, 2008 10:33 AM:

" Yeah, yeah, Bill. And in 1973 it was .32 cents. In the last 18 months we've seen something like a 75% increase. Inflation , which was zero is back, food 19% up. Unemployment at it's lowest rate in 20 years is on the rise. Housing market in a slump, mortgage crisis. All bills involving finance end in the House and your left wing, liberal everlastingly whiny party dominates it. Time for the "Generation that never grew up" to do just that and start taking responsibility for their share of the messy play room. Mommy! Mommy! His piece of pie is bigger than mine! Hey, Bill. Here's a crisis hot line number for you guys: 1-800-WHAAAAAAAA "

LK wrote on Apr 24, 2008 10:23 AM:

" Brad,
One of the best letters I've read in a long time. "

Vetter wrote on Apr 24, 2008 9:22 AM:

" Hey Billy; I seem to remember Nancy Pelosi promising to lower gas prices if the dems got power back....hmmmm...two years now, approval rating in the sewer.... nothing..... it's our own fault, if we would have built even 10 more refineries in the last three decades, as well as drilling, this wouldn't be as painful... We could research alternatives, and do our part in curbing our consumption as well. If every person used ten percent less, that might help, however, I don't think china is likely to curb anything.... "

BILL G-A-R-R wrote on Apr 24, 2008 9:12 AM:

" Hey REX, when your clown posse took over in 2000 gas was .98 cents. Thanks to that secret energy policy Mr. Pengiun and his oil buddies had we're all left holding the bag. WORST ADMINISTRATION EVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!! "

Ezra wrote on Apr 24, 2008 7:07 AM:

" As usual the farmers are whining about farm subsidies. This is socialism pure and simple. The same right wing farmer that wants a subsidy will curse a normal person that seeks universal health care. The sod buster wants insurance that his income will always be protected, but when your ordinary employee wants protection for his health, he is a socialist. The farmer cries that he could go broke with out insurance programs subsidized by the government to protect him against disaster. If an ordinary citizen makes the same claim he is a worthless welfare cheat trying to scam the system. What a double standard. "

Michael Miller wrote on Apr 24, 2008 6:48 AM:

" Hey Emil, Don't pull that race crap on me. I don't buy that either. Funny, I had the same exchange not long ago with a poster of a different name. Things that make you go, Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm? "

REX wrote on Apr 24, 2008 6:45 AM:

" Bill G-A-R-R When your party took over Congress to impliment the "American People's Will" gas was $2.18 per gallon. PERIOD. Then they managed to achieve the lowest approval rating in the history of the United States. Nice work and all at the expense of the American tax payer. So if you're so worried about who's paying for what maybe you should think about it. "

Emil Kashuntz wrote on Apr 24, 2008 6:15 AM:

" Dear AEB, you have a couple misconceptions. First, you think that anyone who advocates sharing has nothing, Not true, I am doing just fine. Some very wealthy people like Bill Gates, George Soros, and Warren Buffett advocate a fair tax system that makes the wealthy pay their share. As for work, I don't have to, but I am going to work today. Work is good for the soul, and makes me understand why working people need more. When you work, you see people struggling under the Bush mess to buy food, pay the high cost of gas, and taxes on the poor. Also when I work I do not get five thousand dollars an hour. Working makes me wonder how the head of Wal Mart could be such a deluded pig to thing that what ever he does, it is worth 850 times what I am doing. I don't buy that nonsense. "

VoR wrote on Apr 24, 2008 12:13 AM:

" To BILL G-A-R-R, Youre kidding right. According to them everything bad about our economy and our society is somehow linked to The Clinton 42 Administration. $120. per barrel oil, Mission Accomplished. Not that Im suspicious or anything but what would you think if while Colonel Sanders was the President, the price of chicken tripled? Personally I think Bush/Cheney gave the whole country an F. With no child left behind.
"

BILL G-A-R-R wrote on Apr 23, 2008 11:08 PM:

" Thanks george bush and all you loyalist for these 3 things I thought I would never see in my life time........

1) $120.00 a barrel for oil.
2)Canadian money is now worth more than U.S..
3)Americans hoarding rice flour and oil due to food shortages.

Gee REX and Seven gone, aren't you proud of all your accomplishments? I can hear your chorus of deny ability already. How far back are you willing to go to place blame this time? Roosevelt?

''Heck of a job Brownie'' Thanks for your wonderful stewardship. Now give us the keys. You get an ''F''. "

CWRETIRED wrote on Apr 23, 2008 9:50 PM:

" From Britanica online. Read the last statement: The total cost of the war to the federal government between 1941 and 1945 was about $321,000,000,000 (10 times as much as World War I). Taxes paid 41 percent of the cost, less than Roosevelt requested but more than the World War I figure of 33 percent. The remainder was financed by borrowing from financial institutions, an expensive method but one that Congress preferred over the alternatives of raising taxes even higher or making war bond purchases compulsory. In consequence the national debt increased fivefold, amounting to $259,000,000,000 in 1945. The Revenue Act of 1942 revolutionized the tax structure by increasing the number who paid income taxes from 13,000,000 to 50,000,000. At the same time, through taxes on excess profits and other sources of income, the rich were made to bear a larger part of the burden, making this the only period in modern history when wealth was significantly redistributed.
"

karl marks wrote on Apr 23, 2008 9:28 PM:

" What's wrong with a little socialism? I haven't read all the post, but you all know that North Dakota has a proud socialist past. State mill, state bank, state bond fund, state hail insurance. And hopefully soon, a state refinery. Socialism is a good thing as an economic system. "

Rasmus wrote on Apr 23, 2008 8:28 PM:

" Emil, I guess some people don't understand that we have classes in this country. My favorite Bush quote (Barb): "And so many of the people in the arena here, you know, were underprivileged anyway so this (chuckle) this is working very well for them." Former First Lady Barbara Bush, on the hurricane evacuees at the Astrodome in Houston, Sept. 5, 2005". How very condescending of Babs. But the rich are smarter, I guess. How else could they bamboozle the US to get into an oil war, get us to pay for it, and get us convinced to pay for a military occupation to protect "our overseas interests". Well, not ALL of us are convinced.
"

Emil Kashuntz wrote on Apr 23, 2008 6:03 PM:

" Love it Michael Miller. Ask for your share, and it's class envy. I bet that is what the plantation guys told the slaves, when they asked for a raise. "

AEB wrote on Apr 23, 2008 5:45 PM:

" Emil Kashuntz wrote on Apr 23, 2008 7:15 AM:
Emil - Are you kidding me? I promise you that I am much more familiar with the Mexican economy than you are, and I can assure you that it IS NOT unfettered capitalism. The economy in Mexico is about the furthest thing from free market that you can get. Either you have money and you are somehow linked to the corrupt government or the drug cartel, or you don't have any money because you are linked to neither. This is corruption, not capitalism. I think that you are mad because you want a handout from someone and you're not getting it. You run your mouth off about things that it is very obvious you know nothing about and it is irresponsible and offensive to reasonable people. According to you, everyone with a different point of view is a Bush-loving, religion-wielding conservative and you are just plain wrong. I am definately none of those things. But I would classify myself as someone who works for what I have and I don't resent people who have more than me because life is too short to spend it being bitter. You should pick up a second job instead of sitting on the computer writing fiction. Then you could increase your income and maybe donate more money to charity. But don't make too much, because otherwise the government will take almost half of it away in the form of income tax.

Sheesh.
"

Michael Miller wrote on Apr 23, 2008 3:50 PM:

" Hey, Emil. Don't pull that class envy crap on me. I don't buy it. "

VoR wrote on Apr 23, 2008 3:29 PM:

" To Rasmus, Thanks. I always look forward to reading your perceptive analysis too.
"

Emil Kashuntz wrote on Apr 23, 2008 2:31 PM:

" Dear Rightwingers Your under garments are all in a knot if someone borrows money to go to school, but when your hero borrows 2.75 trillion for a war in the wrong country no problem. If you want something, pay for it. That is the mantra of the right. Why doesn't George do like every president before him and ask the rich to pay for the war they want so bad. It is always the same, one set of standards for the poor, and one set for the rich. This is the first war in history with tax cuts. "

Rasmus wrote on Apr 23, 2008 1:26 PM:

" To VoR: Great comments! You are able to see where the Rightwingers want to take us and it is not pretty! "

VoR wrote on Apr 23, 2008 12:59 PM:

" Ouch, ouch, ouch. Where are weback in the 3rd grade? What a pitiful response, all bluster and accusation. Not one single counter point. I think the best way to reply is by using someone elses words. "Any fool can criticize, condemn, and complain - and most fools do." Dale Carnegie (1888-1955)
"

seven gone wrote on Apr 23, 2008 10:33 AM:

" there he goes again; pious, arrogant and all knowing, it would take someone like the voice of treason to start from an argumentative point and project forward an argument about concentration camps into an opposing viewpoint, hoping that strengthens their own position by default.

but then he/she knows everything anyway, so i guess the tribune is alright in allowing freewheeling false argumentative logic to be presented as truth. "

Meagan wrote on Apr 23, 2008 10:30 AM:

" To Dakota Patriot:
Do you really think anyone can afford to pay for an education today on their own? You obviously are not a young person, since you have no idea who freaking expensive it is today. I went to UND, and my parents are somewhat wealthy and saved from the day I was born for me to attend there, AND I STILL HAVE 12K IN LOANS!! My parents are very financially responsible and saved a lot of what they earned for my sister and me for college, and yet they still could not pay. Everyone I know at UND has loans, even some of the students from wealthier familes, because with tuition, room and board, books, misc. expenses, you're looking at at least 12K a year. If only people who could pay could go to college, as you believe, NO ONE WOULD BE IN COLLEGE!! The economy of Grand Forks would collapse, as well as our state's higher ed system. Think before you type. "

Emil Kashuntz wrote on Apr 23, 2008 7:15 AM:

" Those who favor unfettered capitalism, should visit a country where that is the case. A quick trip to Mexico would show you a country of two classes, those with, and those without. Who wants to live in a country where poverty is everywhere you look. The reason for gated communities is to keep the poor at bay. Who created the poor? The greedy pigs. Do the pigs benefit? If the pigs want to go out and about and see the poverty they created, and not be the least be bothered, then the system is just fine. Look at Brazil where this has been allowed to happen. The rich in Brazil have created so much poverty they have to have armed guards when they go out. Is this what we want? Once you say the people on top can have all they can get, you kill the people in the middle and the bottom. Aristocracy was something despised in past times, now the right wing wants to bring it back. "

VoR wrote on Apr 23, 2008 1:21 AM:

" To Dakota Patriot, Ive got to hand it to you. You do sound like a pure Capitalist. Even to the point of taxing the churches, very impressive. Clearly nations that have historically leaned in a Capitalist direction have prospered more than those that havent, and the failure of the Soviet Union in the 1990s showed the superiority of free market capitalism over state-centered economic systems. But this vision of a government made up of a military junta operating tentacle like mercenary forces abroad and privately contracted civil authorities backed-up by some kind of kangaroo court system is not only bizarre its completely and totally un-constitutional. Then considering that you would end Social Security, student loans, WIC, Section 8 housing, welfare, farm and business subsidies
Id like to hear the details of what you would do with these weak people who couldnt manage to make it within the parameters of your streamlined capitalist system. Concentration camps perhaps? This stronger country you propose sounds a lot like 1930s Germany. You know, that country responsible for starting World War Two, and the commission of large-scale crimes against humanity, like the persecution and mass-murder of Jews, minorities, and dissidents in the genocide known as the Holocaust. The state introduced slave labor camps for those who were not deemed racially or morally adequate to be its citizens. The thousand year reich that actually lasted for 11. Except that your model doesnt even include a specific leader that could be held accountable. Just some kind of unrestricted military authority. Id like to think that you just havent thought this through, because if you have, youre a perfect example of exactly why we need to protect ourselves and our current form of government, as flawed and as messy as it may be from this kind of unfettered insanity.
"

Dakota Patriot wrote on Apr 22, 2008 10:14 PM:

" Dear VoR: Thank you for your nice comments. Yes I agree with you that the Bear Stearns bailout and the farm programs are disasters for free market capitalism. The federal government should not tinker with the economy, business or pay for or be involved in people's personal lives. The financial fallout of the mortgage debacle is caused, I believe, because the business community (and the consumer for that matter) believing that whatever stupid things that they do, the government (taxpayer) will bail them out. This allows people to make very stupid decisions with very little risk to themselves. This is a major problem in our society. The collective stupid decisions that are made makes our country weaker and much more susceptible to being economically bypassed by many of our world competitors.
If I had my way, our government would only consist of the top brass in the military supervising mercenary forces, i.e. Blackwater etc. for defense and very senior law officers supervising a contract police force. Then there would be courts to decide civil disputes and local offices to record land ownership and encumbrances.
What we have now is a mishmash of laws and policies that make us wonder what and who we really are. Are we capitalists, socialists or communists? A streamlined pure capitalist system will weed out the weak and make us very strong both internally and competitively abroad.
Eliminating socialist programs like Social Security, student loans, WIC, Section 8 housing, welfare, farm and business subsidies as well as stopping the subsidies to churches by not requiring them to pay taxes would return this country to greatness.



"

Just Curious wrote on Apr 22, 2008 9:33 PM:

" Emil,

Here's another way to look at it. It really isn't the CEO who the pay is intended to incentivise. It is the lower workers that will bust their collective butts to eventually get promoted to upper management.

Neither you, I, or very many other people actually believe that a CEO, head of a university, director of a state/federal agency is often providing value that warrants the pay.

Try to look beyond the obvious. It will greatly improve ones observations. "

Just a Thought wrote on Apr 22, 2008 8:33 PM:

" But don't you think that the age of the incredible bonuses has come to an end with the amount of transparency created by the media? Even if it hasn't, I don't think that it really is the sole responsibility of the CEO, after all, he/she negotiated the terms of employment and those terms were signed off by the boards of those corporations. And the final say of those terms is the stockholder themselves, either by divesting their portfolio of those stocks or by proxy votes. Somewhere along the line there was a debate waged and a vote put forth that felt this person was worth the money agreed on. As far as the argument of the worthiness of contribution...I still believe that worthiness is judged by the marketplace. Your example of the polio vaccine is thought provoking and once again brings up the issue of fairness. Unfortunately, I don't think there is any way to legislate fairness, just like there is no way to legislate good taste. The fairness issue reminds of the title of an old Earth, Wind and Fire song....Life's fair, just so uncool. "

Emil Kashuntz wrote on Apr 22, 2008 8:05 PM:

" To Just a thought. Well put. In many ways I can agree with you that a person should be well rewarded for good contributions. You might make a good case for Bill Gates. You could argue he created a system that saved a lot of energy, and work. On the other hand, I hardly think the head of Coca Cola is providing the world with anything of great importance that someone else could not do for much less. It is strange that some of the people who invented things like the polio vaccine were very poorly rewarded by todays standard. The truth is that the real inventor behind microsoft was not gates. He basically bought the idea for $70,000 dollars and did a great job marketing it. The DOS operating system was made by someone else. I see no problem with reward, I just want some rational thought behind it. Most of the CEO's are producing no better return on investment than Treasury bond, yet they are getting 350 time the wage of the worker. Does a person really need a reward of one billion to motivate him? "

Just a Thought wrote on Apr 22, 2008 6:55 PM:

" Emil, thanks for bringing this whole debate to somewhat of a middle ground. Although I agree that there are conditions where "all contributing to the common good" is appropriate...Social Security, Medicare, Medicade and even perhaps welfare (on a very limited and temporary level) are good things when applied in their original and pure states. However, when social programs take the place of or even eliminate personal incentive or accountability, I draw the line. I also take issue with your problem with a person's right to make, earn, inherit as much money as the market will give them. I just cannot agree with a concept that artificially limits a person's earning potential. I was once a teacher, but had an incredible problem with someone else (teacher's union) determining how much I was worth and not allowing me to negotiate my own worth. Every other job I have had since has been some sort of commission structure where I negotiated (for me, on my own) my commission schedule. I now own a couple of businesses that are the ultimate commission job. So, in conclusion, I will restate a comment I made earlier in this string...I think that the majority of people, deep down in their hearts, have the hope that they might be the next Bill Gates and really don't want the government to control their earning potential. Again, Emil, thanks for bringing this to somewhat of a middle ground. "

Emil Kashuntz wrote on Apr 22, 2008 5:16 PM:

" Everyone is hung up on what constitutes fair. I can assure you I don't know. However, like the famous Supreme court justice said "I will know pornography when I see it". The same holds true with basic fairness. I don't think everyone should be rewarded the same, but I know it is obscene to pay the head of Wal Mart 850 times what the working man makes. I know the hedge fund manager that got 3.7 billion, that is right, billion, for one years work is wrong. We will not all agree on what is pornographic, but I think we can all get pretty close. The same holds true for the pornagraphic sums CEO's are getting. "

Emil Kashuntz wrote on Apr 22, 2008 4:44 PM:

" All the people who favor unfettered capitalism had a fit when Airbus won the contract to build the new tanker for the Air Force. All of a sudden Boeing cried foul, we don't need open fair bidding. It is just like the drug companies, capitalism was great as long as they were winning, but when push came to shove they did not want open bidding and a free market selling drugs to the Veterans Administration. No one has a problem with government intervention when it is in the favor of large corporations. Somehow if the government intervenes to help the poor it must be stopped. "

Vetter wrote on Apr 22, 2008 4:44 PM:

" Wow Emil.... You really seem to have your collective stuff together... You really seem to have it figured out..... You got all the answers..... to bad there all wrong, faulty, nonfat, right lite......have a great day emil, it can only go up from here.... "

Emil Kashuntz wrote on Apr 22, 2008 4:32 PM:

" Dear Razor, some seem to be obsessed with the all or none argument. Like many have pointed out there are varying degrees of socialism. You can have some aspects of socialism without accepting the whole enchilada. I think socialistic health care is a proven case. All statistics show it outperforms our model. If we accept that it does not mean we have to give up private property rights. It is very convenient to act as though there is no in between. Anyone so narrow minded as to think that you cannot combine the best aspects of various systems and make one even better is stuck in a bad place. Free enterprise, or capitalism, is the best solution in many cases, however that does not mean it is the best solution in every case. Sometimes a combination of drugs treats cancer better than a single drug, would you refuse to do that because you were stuck on one drug or the other? Get out of the box and realize life comes in a lot of different flavors. Back to the church, churches are practicing and aspect of socialism when they take from one group of pigs and share among those without. It does not follow they need to own your house. Are you going to argue that is next? Then you better stop the churches before they get there, just like you use that argument against anyone who promotes a little sharing. It should be stopped in it's infant stages. What next, suggest we treat people equally? "

Razors Edge wrote on Apr 22, 2008 3:28 PM:

" Emil:

Saying churches are socialism is a weak arguement. Does the Catholic church own my house? Do they force me to give them money? Am I forced to be a member? The day a Catholic priest comes to my door, and forces me to give them money is the day the church will burn. Or do you believe the church should force you to give them money? "

REX wrote on Apr 22, 2008 3:19 PM:

" Emil, Churches are fascist. Jesus told us we were either with him or against him. "

This is scary wrote on Apr 22, 2008 3:14 PM:

" My church does not tax me to use its facilities. My church asks me to tithe and I give what I can. I am well aware my church helps society any way they can, and I dont believe anyone here would think otherwise! I CHOOSE to contribute and my church is grateful for its contributions. Never once have I been told your rich, youre a horrible selfish person, give it all away! "

Emil Kashuntz wrote on Apr 22, 2008 1:25 PM:

" Churches seem to favor redistributing wealth, does that make them socialist? Perhaps they are enlightened capitalist. If it is a bad thing, why are churches for it? "

VoR wrote on Apr 22, 2008 1:10 PM:

" To Dakota Patriot, Looks like you pushed some buttons by equating student loans and social programs with Socialism. Actually you do have a point. However I notice that you excluded farm subsidies and corporate welfare like the Bear/Stearns bail-out in your analogy. Did you just forget, or is true free market Capitalism as flawed as pure Socialism is?
"

Just Curious wrote on Apr 22, 2008 10:19 AM:

" Call me silly, but I kind of like having the educated (pronounced wealthy to some of you) as opposed to the 8th grade dropout (pronounced unemployed ditchdigger in need of his fair share) making the rules.

Don't like it? Fine, get an education!

BTW, everyone seems to always forget that the Dems seem to only really support redistribution of wealth when the wealth is not theirs in the first place. Think I am kidding, look up the demographics of who willingly distributes a greater portion of their own income to charitable organizations. It's wonderfully available on the internet through many organizations that are not politically aligned. Here's a hint, try the charitable organizations themselves, they know who to best target for a contribution.

Those who say repubs (of which I am not) do not want to help people out are full of crap. Rather, like I they only want to be able to decide who is most deserving of their hard-earned, or maybe even not-so-hard-earned, money.

"

Razor's Edge wrote on Apr 22, 2008 9:52 AM:

" Dakota Patriot:

Student loans are socialism? How? If you borrow someone money and they pay it back with interest I think that's called capitalism. Now if you would've said grants then maybe I'd agree. However, once someone is educated they tend to make more money, not be on government assistance, and get taxed more. In theory, over time they should pay back all of the grant and more.

Emil:

I agree there does need to be regulation in a capitalist society to stop monopolies from being formed. I think we do a decent job on that now, but there could be some improvements.

I was starting to see your other points on the "fair share", but then you did the whole "increase the taxes on the rich". When you talked about USING more than your “fair share” you should be for a flat tax which is based on how much you use. Instead, you still want a system based on income, and has nothing to do with the "fair share". It penalizes you for making money, and you make it sound like you are the devil. They are independent of each other, but it makes for a good campaign slogan: "Tax the evil rich". How is it fair that if you have 2 families with 2 kids, a $150,000 house, 2 cars, but one pays $10,000 in taxes and another pays $20,000? If they use the same “fair share” shouldn’t they both be paying the same mount? "

This is scary!!!! wrote on Apr 22, 2008 9:46 AM:

" Emil-
All you talk about is fair share. Tell me the fair share between an individual who dropped out of school and doesn't hold a job and an individual who went to college for 6-8 years and is now a Brain Surgeon. Make me understand that the doctor should split his earnings to give the dropout a fair share. Should the doctor and the dropout live in the same square foot house? Should the Doctor and the dropout drive the exact same vehicle? Should the Doctor and the dropout wear the same clothes? Tell me who the dictator will be to oversee that everyone has exactly their fair share – tell me that is not similar to communism.
"

Rasmus wrote on Apr 22, 2008 8:59 AM:

" To Dakota Patriot: Your example of student loans as socialism is a poor one. Most of us went through college and needed loans because we could not work full-time. When I finished payments, the government received more that what I got from them. Now if you want to talk "subsidies" and who becomes weaker from receiving them, pick on another group of people. How many receive farms subsidies and do they have to pay them back? Teddy Roosevelt had to rein in "free market capitalism" in his day and we need another one like him. What we don't need are sermons about how "free markets" will solve problems for working people. Better review those Repub talking points, bud, they're not meant for the working class. "

Law wrote on Apr 22, 2008 8:46 AM:

" Patriot,

How is using a loan to go to college a subsidy. You have to PAY a loan back. Yes the govt does provide some interest breaks but it is not free money. Do you pay any loans for your cars or house? A student loan is the same thing, it must be paid. "

Emil Kashuntz wrote on Apr 22, 2008 8:16 AM:

" Capitalism in many ways is very efficient, and generally I support it. However, there have been times when unregulated it has backfired on us. The nature of capitalism allows great sums to accumulate at the top. There needs to be a system to keep this from happing. The tax structure does need to be changed and there are several alternatives that may work. I favor a progressive tax, it worked in the past. One of the problems with wealth comes power. Once the money goes to the top the power follows it. When the people on top make the rules they make rules that favor themselves, Bush is a prime example. Between lobbyist, and propagandist, the wealthy end up with undo influence. The military industrial complex is a great example of the wealthy feathering their own nest at everyones expense. So many times when a company get large it creates a monopoly and that also creates many problems. There is nothing wrong with capitalism, but unfettered, it causes a lot of problems. The current economic mess we have is because a massive amount of debt has been created by the Bush administration. Bush's refusal to raise taxes on the rich is the root of the problem. "

Dakota Patriot wrote on Apr 21, 2008 11:57 PM:

" I think that it is interesting that most of you people, both Democrats and Republicans support many social programs. The more we as a country stray from free market capitalism, the more we are embracing socialism. Embracing socialism just makes us weaker. A glaring example is the student loan program. Why on God's green Earth do we have to loan people money (subsidize) to go to college? If people don't earn what they receive, they don't appreciate it and then they don't take full advantage of the opportunity. This wastes resources and makes us weaker, individually and as a country. If you can't pay for an education yourself, you should not have it. It is as simple as that. The same can be said for health care, food stamps, welfare etc. Not earning what you receive just takes away the drive to strive. Capitalism is the only way to harness the human spirit to make the world a better place. "

Razor's Edge wrote on Apr 21, 2008 10:41 PM:

" Emil:

When it comes to ethanol you are preaching to the choir. I totally agree with you on that. However, that wasn't just a Republican thing it was both sides. If you really want someone to blame for that blame the environmentalists and their lobbyists. Unfortunately, I think that diabolical mess will happen again as I see us doing things without testing them first. I say we need more nuclear power plants, but anyway I digress.

Who decides what someone's "fair share" is? Do you? Myself? The government? We could argue that until we both die. Right now that is based on how much someone makes. I don’t like that because it doesn’t accurately reflect on how much that person uses (most) products. That’s why I would like to see a flat tax. The more you buy the more you pay.

With your definition it would mean everyone in the US is greedy/selfish since we all use more than our “fair share”. However, between 2000 and 2005 the US gave $1,003.8 BILLION as foreign aid. So we aren’t too bad. "

Emil Kashuntz wrote on Apr 21, 2008 8:06 PM:

" Dear Razor, think of it this way. You know the great ethanol solution to our energy crisis, it has now indirectly caused world food shortages, and driven up the price of food for Americans. In any given year X amount of goods are produced. If one selfish group takes more than their share, that inherently means others do without. The Republican philosophy is that my share is as much as I can get. That means others do without. The Republicans do not support sharing, their health care policy shows it, their energy policy shows it, and their tax policy shows it. If you cannot see how a party that promotes greed and consumption by a few causes poverty, then it will be difficult to show you anything. Over and over on this blog site you hear these people blatantly say, "Its mine, and I will waste it as I please." U.S. oil consumption deprives other people in the world of an essential resource that they need for far better purposes than blow exhaust out the back of an SUV. What about selfish don't you get? Whenever someone uses more than their share it means someone else will do with less than their share. Does a rich man really have the right to pump 8,000 gallons of fuel into his yacht, when that fuel could have been turned into fertilizer to feed hundreds of people? Have you no sense of decency? "

This is scary!!! wrote on Apr 21, 2008 7:44 PM:

" Emil- Emil- Emil,
You don't have any "polite" terms- when people don't see your point you call them names. Why can't you just agree to disagree?
The Lord helps those who help themselves- are you sure you aren't Republican? "

dante wrote on Apr 21, 2008 6:31 PM:

" Vetter, when i present FACTS about your HEROES, they are usually met with DEAD silence. over and over and over. its a proven fact. thank you very much. "

Razor's Edge wrote on Apr 21, 2008 6:26 PM:

" Emil:

I'm not a Republican but you said:

Dear AEB, Don't get me wrong, there are a lot of poor Republicans, that is what makes no sense. Why are people on the lower end of the economic spectrum supporting the gang that keeps them their.

How do Republicans "keep people poor"? I'm in no way defending a party or the government. I'm just curious on what facts you will produce. My stance is really simple. I believe the government should provide the basic needs (military, education, roads, sewer etc.), and tax me for it since I use it. I don't have a problem with that. However, after those are taken care of I want my money to spend it as I please, and I don't want the government's hand in my pocket. For the record I believe Republicans and Democrats have done it. I won't be voting for McCain, Hillary, or Obama. "

Vetter wrote on Apr 21, 2008 6:01 PM:

" Emil Cashhunter; By your logic a majority of conservatives should be voting for the liberal democrat party....That's exactly why you are going to lose in November. "

Emil Kashuntz wrote on Apr 21, 2008 5:58 PM:

" Dear Nick, Don't pray for me, if there is a God, he has been very good to me. I am not possessed with getting every last dime before I die, my health is good, I have plenty to eat, a nice place to live, and take year long vacations. The only thing that makes me sad are the other people that struggle under a system that favors a few at the cost of many. "

Emil Kashuntz wrote on Apr 21, 2008 5:55 PM:

" Anyone who can read can easily find out the middle class is losing in this game. When the top five percent get 90 percent of the income, no more explanation should be needed. I don't know what the polite term for the people who can't see this is. What about this is illogical to you, or don't you understand? The only possible answer that would make any sense, would be that you think this is just fine. How you can say this is fine and still have any sense of decency or morals puzzles me unless you do some of the "They earned mumbo jumbo, or They pay for everything routine". Neither argument passes the muster of logic or fact. "

Emil Kashuntz wrote on Apr 21, 2008 5:45 PM:

" Dear AEB, Don't get me wrong, there are a lot of poor Republicans, that is what makes no sense. Why are people on the lower end of the economic spectrum supporting the gang that keeps them their. For a rich Republican, motivated by greed it may make some kind of sense, but for people making under 200k per year, there is no reason to support them. "

AEB wrote on Apr 21, 2008 4:48 PM:

" Dear Razor, I am actually working today, I am just home for lunch. I cannot resist seeing if logic will phase people. I should know better it doesn't, look what Bush did to them, the same people will probably line up to vote for McCain. It is hopeless, but it is fun to see how people react when you hit them with reality. The most amazing thing is to see the fools who suffer under this nonsense support it. All I really need to do is watch the 19.95 adds on TV to know there is an endless supply of stupid people. "

Emil-
No offense, but I see little logic contained in any of your posts. I do not classify myself as a conservative, but I definately disagree with just about everything that you say. Also, it is funny if you think that stupid people are evidenced by the prevalence of "19.95" television offers, and yet you also say that it is conservative people who support Bush who are the rich people that are oppressing and not giving anything to the poor. I don't get it. Who are the stupid people calling in to order items costing $19.95? Those rich conservatives? You don't make any sense. I am fairly convinced that you think everyone who doesn't think exactly the same way you do is stupid and do you know what that makes you? I'll let you figure it out.
"

Vetter wrote on Apr 21, 2008 4:25 PM:

" Here you go VoR, there's more if you want, face it the liberal democrat party gives less than us redneck neocons........... Sixteen months ago, Arthur C. Brooks, a professor at Syracuse University, published "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism." The surprise is that liberals are markedly less charitable than conservatives.

If many conservatives are liberals who have been mugged by reality, Brooks, a registered independent, is, as a reviewer of his book said, a social scientist who has been mugged by data. They include these findings:

-- Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).

-- Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.

-- Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George Bush.

-- Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average.

-- In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 percent, donated just 1.9 percent.

-- People who reject the idea that "government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality" give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition.
"

Rasmus wrote on Apr 21, 2008 4:16 PM:

" To "This is Scary!": Your statement about Democrats and Republicans is quite a generalization! Since you like making generalizations, maybe this one by John Stuart Mill will impress you: "Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservative." "

VoR wrote on Apr 21, 2008 3:45 PM:

" To mom-of-teens, Isn’t it interesting when someone cites a “known fact” without any attribution? I was wondering how long it would take for the word “elitist” to start showing up in the neocon posts. Longer than I expected. They must not update their talking points over the weekend. "

Vetter wrote on Apr 21, 2008 3:38 PM:

" CW4 Retired; Hello sir, it sure is good to see you here, no one else, myself included, do near the job you do. Your posts are based on fact, when you call a far left poster out, (VoR excluded for the most part, he sticks to the facts for the most part), 9 times out of 10, they have no response, other than to bash you, the president, Dick Cheney, Wal-Mart, etc. etc.... I hope the day finds you well. "

Wow wrote on Apr 21, 2008 3:29 PM:

" Hey Emil I am jealous of your good fotune. Never having to work is awsumb. Be aware Billary and whosyourmama will take the capital gains tax from 15% to 20-30%. That may hurt your bottom line. I hope to work for at least 15 more years. I am putting $ away for my retirement. I hope it will be enough. I hope it does not get taxed away. "

VoR wrote on Apr 21, 2008 3:07 PM:

" To Greedy republican, You are absolutely right. You don’t have to defend your opinion. That is completely your choice to make. You’re also correct that I have no personal knowledge of how much of your opulence you choose to share with those less fortunate than yourself. However, when you respond with remarks like, “I sure give my share for the schools, roads, sewers etc. What is left after I am gone will benefit MY family- deal with it. " It does give me an some idea. Oh, and I never said that you didn’t earn what you have. Many top CEOs “earn” a typical salary of $1 million - $3 million per year.
"

VoR wrote on Apr 21, 2008 3:05 PM:

" To wow, I went back and re-read my post to Greedy republican dated Apr 19, 2008 11:00 PM: I don’t see any mention as to the religion or even the ethnicity of the carpenter I referenced. On your other point, I haven’t brought up the invasion and occupation of Iraq for quite a while But since you have, 1st, Since your justification for this action is Saddam’s disgusting treatment of his own people, you logically must also be calling for similar actions to be undertaken against North Korea, Chad, Darfur, Cuba, Sudan, Congo & Uganda. 2nd, If some other nation were to take issue with America’s nuclear program or our stockpiling of nerve agents and other WMD and decided that we needed a regime change, wouldn’t you find a preemptive invasion of our territory offensive? I sure would. We are a sovereign nation and such an invasion and occupation would be a clear violation of international law. In my view defending her against these invaders would be my patriotic duty. The imprisoning of our civilian population would also unquestionably be a war crime. Don’t you get it? We are part of a world community. This planet is not obligated to live by our standards. When we exercise this “big stick” diplomacy we’re making much of the world view us with increasing skepticism & fear, and further tarnishing our image as the predominant beacon of freedom & democracy. Luckily we have an election coming up soon. Maybe we can start to change this disastrous and foolish foreign policy.
"

Rasmus wrote on Apr 21, 2008 2:49 PM:

" NEWSFLASH, I'm not angry at all. I'm happy! So now I can get $9/hr, health bennies, and go on welfare? You just can't beat that! Just let me know where I can get that deal and sign me up! Gotta go,time to pull myself up by my bootstraps, bye! "

This is scary!!! wrote on Apr 21, 2008 2:49 PM:

"
Some people are taught "Life is supposed to be fair" and they sit in a bubble waiting for good things to come to them.
Other people are taught the opposite- “Life isn’t fair”-don't rely on others, you make your own good fortune.
They grow up and usually the first is a Democrat the latter a Republican.
The Dem has views they are "owed"......well absolutely everything through the concept of sharing. The Republican is usually a driven overachiever that worked very hard and says I earned it, it’s for my family.
Which family view is right????? Both are right! The beauty of America is the freedom of choice. You can choose to sit and hope good things will come or you can choose to make good things happen on your own.

"

Nick wrote on Apr 21, 2008 2:37 PM:

" Emil: I feel sorry for you that your outlook is so dim and negative. Spouting the tenets of Christianity without even a belief in it. Talk about a hypocrite. You sound like a very sad and angry person. I will say a prayer for you that the dark cloud covering your bleak and lonely existence will some day be lifted. "

Emil Kashuntz wrote on Apr 21, 2008 2:02 PM:

" Dear Razor, I am actually working today, I am just home for lunch. I cannot resist seeing if logic will phase people. I should know better it doesn't, look what Bush did to them, the same people will probably line up to vote for McCain. It is hopeless, but it is fun to see how people react when you hit them with reality. The most amazing thing is to see the fools who suffer under this nonsense support it. All I really need to do is watch the 19.95 adds on TV to know there is an endless supply of stupid people. "

AEB wrote on Apr 21, 2008 2:00 PM:

" I don't get it. Is the author a democrat or a socialist? Either way he is confused. Using things/services that the United States government provides is not socialism. According to Merriam-Webster, socialism is 1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

Public roads, post offices and the internet are not goods (reference the dictionary for that one, too or look it up in the Uniform Commercial Code). Nor does the United States government control all means of production. We live in a capitalist society. The only thing remotely socialist that we have are public assistance/welfare programs.

Just so you know. "

Emil Kashuntz wrote on Apr 21, 2008 1:57 PM:

" Dear Vetter, go outside and look at your thermometer. There are a lot of numbers on it from thirty below to 120 above. The definition of hot or cold takes in a lot. I am talking about extremes. The head of Walmart is making over five thousand dollars per hour. That is 850 times what the greeter gets. Do you really think he works 850 times harder, or 850 times smarter? I am not proposing they both be paid the same, I just think we should consider moving the two closer together. What if we had a rule that the head guy never could get more than one hundred times what the bottom guy got? Would that not still give the top guy incentive to improve the job for everyone? The former head of Home Depot walked off with close to a half billion, the stock never went anywhere under him? What was it they paid him for? You act like there are only two numbers on the thermometer, it is a matter of degree. It is out of wack what the pigs now demand. "

Vetter wrote on Apr 21, 2008 1:52 PM:

" Mommy; if you squeeze your horn any harder it's going to explode....geez.... How's the weather up there on that high horse? Do realize how elitist you sound, it's a known fact republicans donate more to charity than that of your party. You spew your hate of republicans with lies, we hate the poor, etc... Have you worked in a soup kitchen? Have you given the gloves laying on the front seat of your import car to someone cold standing on the corner? Have you ever given the last $20.00 in your purse to someone sleeping on a bench in the cold? I'm NOT saying this to toot my own horn, but I'm through listening to you bash republicans for being inconsiderate of those less fortunate. I have done all of these things. Again, I'm sure you libs will bash me for bringing this up, I don't want a pat on the back, or a kudos, or whatever. I am done with you too mommy... "

vetter wrote on Apr 21, 2008 1:41 PM:

" Emil Cashhunt; In reference to your talking about Wal-Mart and (Mcdonell's?), how much do think someone flipping burgers, or pushing carts should make an hour? "

Razor's Edge wrote on Apr 21, 2008 1:17 PM:

" Emil:

Wow, you must have a lot of time on your hands to post so much. In your last post you mentioned Wal-Mart and McDonald's as employers. Using free market laws (which we do use) those people have little or no skills and anyone can do the job. Does their pay wage reflect that? I would say it does.

I thought the idea of someone not liking what they got paid was to work harder, gain skills, and move up in the company. Am I wrong on this? Everyone in America is guaranteed to get a HS education. It costs them nothing to go to school. So why do we have kids drop out?

When I was going to college I was working as a dishwasher at a restaurant (not fast food). It put things into perspective why I was going to college. "

Emil Kashuntz wrote on Apr 21, 2008 11:52 AM:

" Freemarket, you make some good points, about the Bush gang. "

Emil Kashuntz wrote on Apr 21, 2008 11:49 AM:

" Unions allowed people to ask for and get their share of the pie. Republicans, and greed dogs have done everything, and I might add successfully to stamp out unions. A person is free to switch jobs, but whether you work at Wal Mart, or McDonnell's, you still make nothing. It is fine for companies to ban together to suppress wages, but common people should not be able to ban together to improve them. When the drug companies bought off congress that was just fine. That is just the free market in action. We have the highest drug prices in the world because among others the Government is not allowed to use competitive bidding with the drug companies. Isn't that kind of unionism in reverse. Talk about fairness. You might also note working people got a bigger share of the output when unions were strong. What a coincidence? "

Emil Kashuntz wrote on Apr 21, 2008 11:43 AM:

" I don't buy the religious jazz, I just like to throw it in the face of the hypocrites that go to church than ignore the basic tenets of Christianity. No one could at the same time claim to be a good Christian, and support the selfish policies of the Republicans. I am amazed by the gutless preachers who know better then to criticize the people sitting right in front of them by telling the real story of what Jesus message was. Jesus did not preach tax breaks for the rich and bigger boats and RVs for people while a majority did without. The amazing thing about the Christianity we have developed in this country is you can be as greedy as you want and still go to church with a clear conscience? Look at the crooked preachers like Pat Roberson, they are worth millions, and while they fleece the flock the flock cannot see through the sham. My real view is that religion is just one more sham to sell the masses on a program whereby they get bilked. "

Southpark wrote on Apr 21, 2008 10:50 AM:

" Nice quote hard worker. Simple, to the point and so very true...... "

To CW4 wrote on Apr 21, 2008 9:56 AM:

" You keep spouting all these tax percentages.

The catch is all of those statistics are based on AGI.

Do these wealthy people have more deductions from gross income?
"

Nick wrote on Apr 21, 2008 9:39 AM:

" Emil: For someone who implies such a deep religious conviction you sure seem angry and intolerant of others. Both sides of this argument make valid points but no one as yet has explained just who gets to determine the true "degree" of fairness in a free society. We will always differ in our opinions and it seems the answer is to give what each of us deems fair in our own regard (in addition to the mandated "sharing" that is taxation). After all, won't God in his own way, punish the greedy and selfish and reward the generous? Your continued reference to slavery in your argument misses an important point---slaves had no freedom. We as individuals are free to look for other employment at any time if we are dissatisfied with our current lot in life. Capitalism does give virtually any able bodied individual the potential for unlimited success.
Rest assured, I am doing "my share" when it comes to the betterment of mankind--even if it doesn't meet your holier than thou standards. "

To Emil Kashuntz - wrote on Apr 21, 2008 9:34 AM:

" Are you a trying to come off as a Christian? I can't really tell from your posts.

I do know I was taught you aren't supposed to call people names, judge people, and you aren't supposed to covet your neighbor's possessions.


"

Emil Kashuntz wrote on Apr 21, 2008 9:19 AM:

" Dear Wow. I don't have to go to work today, I never had to go to work. My Dad left me a nice sum. I simply live from the dividends and interest. Bush has mad it even better, because I get to keep more. The net result is I have been able to build the sum, so it looks like my children will never have to work either. Capitalism is wonderful. I think the money I get comes from the guys on assembly lines somewhere. They build they stuff, and I get a big share of the work they do because my dad left me a nice bundle. I sure hope they don't keep the estate tax that could put an end to my well earned liesure. "

This is scary!!! wrote on Apr 21, 2008 9:18 AM:

" To CW4retired-
Please don't pay any attention to dante, I personally love your well informed messages- The only sermon preaching here is Emil Kashuntz........... "

Emil Kashuntz wrote on Apr 21, 2008 8:58 AM:

" One of the cleverest ploys I have ever seen is when the wealthy point to the poor as the problem. Who in their right mind would walk into a room and have a fat guy tell you the skinny guys are causing a food shortage? "

Hard Worker wrote on Apr 21, 2008 8:43 AM:

" "The trouble with opportunity is that it always comes disguised as hard work." Anonymous

"

Emil Kashuntz wrote on Apr 21, 2008 8:31 AM:

" It is extremely difficult to understand slaves that support slavery. A small portion of people reap the rewards of many people working. In it's simplest form that is what slavery is about. The fact that someone can weave a social system that makes this seem necessary, and just is amazing. It is also amazing that the concept of sharing and a sincere desire to help others can be turned into an evil thing. Most amazing of all is that the victims of this thinking would even consider supporting it. It is very much like religion in the middle ages, masses suffered from exploitation by the church, but through indoctrination they supported it. In another similarity to religion, it makes no sense, so you are supposed to take it on faith. "

wow wrote on Apr 21, 2008 8:28 AM:

" vor: Your jewish carpenter comment was maid april 19th 11:00 pm. I wonder how much of your annual pay you donate to the NEEDY? How much time do you donate to GOOD causes. My only point is there is NO reason not to make a decent living. Pure lazyness! The western north dakota oil companies need thousands of workers right NOW. People are to lazy to take these jobs. They would rather complain about fox news , George bush and the price of oil. Oh, and the war we should not have fought. It would have been ok to let so samn insane gas hundreds of thousands of his own innocent people though.

WoW

I must go. I am off to better my familys future. I am going to make Money.
I thought you might need a clue "

Greedy Republican wrote on Apr 21, 2008 7:39 AM:

" To VoR- I don't need to "defend" my own opinion. Everyone has oportunities to better themselves. Your opinion that I took something I didn't earn makes me laugh. There was no inheritance here buddy, it's all self made from back breaking sweat and tears. You have no idea if I give to charity. You see republican and assume I don't. I sure give my share for the schools, roads, sewers etc. What is left after I am gone will benefit MY family- deal with it. "

mom-of-teens wrote on Apr 21, 2008 7:10 AM:

" To wow, mom of teens is even more impressed by the fact that you worked two jobs and carried a full class load. You must have super powers, not everyone can do that. What's so hard about that, you ask?? Depends on your situation doesn't it?? Most people don't live with mom and dad when attending school; lots of older than average people go back to school and have families to care for in addition. When I went back to school, I carried a full class load, work ONE full time job, and had a 6 month old baby and a 3 year old! Sounds so easy, doesn't it? Millions of people take out student loans to get their education and pay it back when they are done. Republicans and Democrats ALIKE use this "horrible" "feel good" "socialistic" program and are all the better for it! "

NEWSFLASH wrote on Apr 21, 2008 7:01 AM:

" Oh my everyone is so angry here!! Can't we all just get along? LOL!
To Rasmus: Did you see me doing any more than correcting the wages at Walmart? If you are full time you actually do get Heath Ins and retirement. And you know what else, You can probably recieve full welfare benefits besides :) Seems like a win-win to me. "

CW4RETIRED wrote on Apr 21, 2008 5:42 AM:

" Hi Southpark: Good to see another old friend back at it. Your comments brought a smile to my face. Blind partisanship is a dangerous thing. For some, it's always the other guy's fault. Yep, it's the same old song and dance. Sometimes I just can't help myself either. I have to put my 2 cents worth in. Great to see you here again, Southpark. Have a wonderful day.

VoR: Great post. As I've said before. We may not always agree, but you do a great job of trying to back up your opinions with facts instead of emotions as many of the bloggers do. You challenge me to think. I can learn from that and respect that. I can't learn anything from some on this site that can only offer sarcasm, insults, and emotional rants. I'm still researching your comments before I try to hit the ball back to your side of the court. Thanks VoR. "

Southpark wrote on Apr 20, 2008 10:18 PM:

" VOR: Yea, the welfare reform... looks good on paper but believe me, its not working the way it is "suppose" to work. "

VoR wrote on Apr 20, 2008 8:59 PM:

" To Wow, Thank's for your opinions. I'm sure that Greedy republican appreciates your defense of his post. In case you haven't been paying attention, The welfare system went through some big changes when President Clinton enacted major welfare reform in 1996. The days when someone could receive welfare checks indefinitely are over and welfare rolls have been cut in half. The current approach requires many recipients to work for their benefits and also places a five-year time limit on cash assistance. While both welfare rolls and the poverty rate dropped in the 1990s, that has changed since the 2001 recession. The number of households who had trouble getting enough food also increased from 10.7 percent in 2001 to 11.1 percent in 2002, and have continued to grow through the Bush years according to the Agriculture Department. And the Community Service Society survey found 27 percent of low-income New Yorkers fell behind in their rent or couldn't pay for medical care. We were fortunate enough to have grown-up in the wealthiest, most prosperous nation in the history of the world. We can feed & house our poorest citizens if we only want to.
By the way, did I say anything about a Jewish carpenter? If you Google the name Sam Seagull you'll see a bunch of links to videos about a bird who steals stuff. "

Rasmus wrote on Apr 20, 2008 8:37 PM:

" NEWSFLASH, $9.00/hr translates into $16, 591 or about $320 per week! (after taxes) Wow!! Can I get health bennies and a 401K, too? "

Southpark wrote on Apr 20, 2008 7:48 PM:

" to Mom of teens: Clearly you have a strong "opinion" and you are very matter of fact in "your beliefs" but you need to keep something in mind. This is your opinon and your beliefs. What that means is just because that is what you believe does not make it right and it doesn't make others wrong. We do get it. We just see things differently than you do. "

Razor's Edge wrote on Apr 20, 2008 7:44 PM:

" You said socialism doesn't restrict individual's rights. If/when we get social healthcare can you guarantee me the government won't tell me what I can and cannot eat? I've already heard the argument "Since we are paying for your healthcare we can dictate what you eat". We banned trans fats because they are bad for you. Will the government make me exercise 3 times a week too? I know smoking, drinking, not exercising, and McDonald's Big Macs aren't healthy, but it's my choice. "

Southpark wrote on Apr 20, 2008 7:42 PM:

" Hey CW4 retired.... good to read your posts. Its like meeting up with and old friend. I really didn't want to get into reading these comments because it always seems to turn into a political blood bath with no one really saying anything new. Really its the same old song and dance. I couldn't help notice in Brad's letter where he states the right wingers and their party have nothing to offer America but endless war,national debt,hate,fear,division,corruption and enless lies......for some reason that sounds very familiar to me. It sounds very similiar to what goes on when the Democrats are in office. I would be curious as to what Brad thinks his party has to offer America. "

fp wrote on Apr 20, 2008 6:50 PM:

" wow: Do you really think a "large chunk of society" sponge off the government? This is one of your fox "news" facts that is simply not true. Sure there are people who think like that and do abuse the system, but I believe every one wants to pull their own way. This type of thinking is brought to you by the same people who want to you to believe that illegal immigrants are coming for your jobs. These republican talking points are meant to stimulate a constant state of fear enabling the crooks in charge to continue their war crimes.
Now they want you to think Obama is going to take away your guns or that he is a muslim. Lap it up you lemmings....I can`t believe you are still buying it. "

freemarketradical wrote on Apr 20, 2008 6:49 PM:

" I find all this ideas about social spending very amusing. Last week, the opening line of a report released by the National Defense University, the Pentagon's premier military educational institue said " Measured in blood and treasure, the war in Iraq has achieved the status of a major war and a major debachel". I am sure that if the NDU wrote about Bushs tax cuts they would call them a debacle also. The fact is the neocons have but the Treasury so far into the red through an unnecessary, mismanaged, foolish war that their is no real money left to spend on new socialist programs. The growth of spending, the decisions by Bush and the neocons, and the refusal of congress to do anything abut it is much more of a threat than any social program the liberals could dream up. "

Razor's Edge wrote on Apr 20, 2008 5:56 PM:

" Do we seriously have to have this conversation once a week? Why is it that when someone says they don't want socialism religion gets thrown in the mix? Jesus said this and God wants you to do that. So? Just because I don't like socialism doesn't make me a religious fanatic.

mom-of-teens:

I thought everyone was born with the same opportunities (minus the handicapped and disabled)? How many people were born poor and now are rich. I think even Obama falls into that category doesn't he? I don't see anyone who is against socialism as a whole. I think we like public roads, education, sewer, water, and the post office. The difference is we pay for it and use it.

When you say you want social healthcare have you really thought about that? Healthcare costs keep rising, and they will rise will rise no matter who foots the bill. The problem will be that it will cost the government more and more each year. If it starts at 110 Billion what will it be at in 5 years? To compensate they will have to raise taxes. Say you make $30,000 a year and live in Saskatchewan Canada. The federal cut is $30,000 * .15 = $4,500 and the provincial is $30,000 * .11 = $3,300. So that's $7,800 leaving you $22,200. Now that's not even including any other taxes like property taxes. (http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tax/individuals/faq/taxrates-e.html).

And if you say Canada's healthcare is so great why did these babies have to be born in Montana? http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/story.html?id=41ccae74-8325-449a-b89f-e68957ca25ae&k=79546 "

wow wrote on Apr 20, 2008 5:26 PM:

" Mom of teens:
I payed for college working two jobs. I subsidized myself. Why does the gov need to help pay for college? Work and go to school. Why is that soooo hard?
Both sides the dems and repubs messed up on our current fiscal situation. If I am not mistaken we have Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid as two of the best(LOL) Dem leaders. WOW "

mom-of-teens wrote on Apr 20, 2008 3:58 PM:

" To wow, that's an incredible story! I agree with the whole provide for yourself thing too. Especially when it comes to college education. I think everyone should have a college education and subsidized student loans are a reality for most people who thrive for a college degree! I am also for big corporations providing well paying jobs to people to "provide for themselves" and these same companies not accepting government subsidies when they clearly don't need the help! I think people who buy homes should pay their own mortgages and not buy homes from loan shark sub-prime rip off lenders, homes which they cannot afford. I think it's too little too late for this administration to preach fiscal responsibility. I think that fiscal responsibility, or in this country fiscal IRRESPONSIBILITY, reflects not only on the bad behavior of the government, but also the bad behavior of the citizens who live here. Fiscal responsibility starts in the home and extends to the community, as does generosity, advocation for the elderly and disabled, and ethics in business and personal relationships. I think if you are so concerned about people working for what they have, teaching the other above qualities by example is a good thing TOO! Unfortunately, our current leaders missed all of the above lessons. "

wow wrote on Apr 20, 2008 2:11 PM:

" Hey vor I was not home schooled my family paid property taxes to give me the right to attend public school. It did not give me a right to sponge off the government my entire life. We have a large chunk of the population that believes the government should provide for their daily needs,
If you do not have mental problems and have the capability to work PLEASE provide for yourself.
I new a jewish carpenter. His name was sam seagull and he built 30% of present day st. louis park. I do not think he took any free money from the gov. He made money the old fashioned way. He earned it! "

mom-of-teens wrote on Apr 20, 2008 1:36 PM:

" To cw4retired, I never once said in any of my posts that the government should regulate how much a person earns; that is the basis of capitalism. What I have a problem with is corporate welfare; earn and much as you want and still get handouts from the government; that's what I disagree with. Repubs always have the argument, make it on your own, make it on your own, and yet companies who are "making it on their own" are still being subsidized by the government and then turning around and laying workers off, or walking away with someone's pension. That's what I disagree with. To just a thought, without commenting TOO much on your ridiculous post, I will say that I paid in this year and didn't claim the credits I was entitled to for my TWO kids because my ex and I alternate claiming the kids; Kinda blows your argument out of the water now doesn't it?? Greedy?? selfish?? Uhhh NO not quite! If that were the case my ex would never CLAIM the kids as dependents even though I PAY most of their expenses. He needed the deduction this year to purchase a decent vehicle to drive our kids around when I travel for my job. But since you brought it up, did YOU claim all the deductions YOU were entitled to?? Goes both ways honey!! This is not a one way street, and once again proves that you miss the point entirely. You would be better off not commenting anymore, the more you talk the more you prove that you just don't get it. K, now I'm done with you!! "

dante wrote on Apr 20, 2008 1:31 PM:

" cw4retired, wow, did i sign up for a sermon ? thank you very much. who sent you here? "

NEWSFLASH wrote on Apr 20, 2008 1:19 PM:

" Where do you people live?? Walmart starts people above Min. wage! Infact, a lot of businesses start at 8-9 dollars per hour. Otherwise they can't get people to work. I'm just pointing that out. "

Flyer wrote on Apr 20, 2008 1:17 PM:

" A couple of fellows are sitting on a porch with two dogs. From time to time, one of the dogs gets up and moves from under the hot sun to a shady spot. The other dog never moves, just groans and howls loudly every so often.

Finally, one of the fellows asks whats up with the second dog. The guy says the first dog gets up and moves to a better spot when he gets too uncomfortable. The second dog groans and howls but stays in the hot sun. "

CW4RETIRED wrote on Apr 20, 2008 12:41 PM:

" To Dante: No tears here for the billionaires. Neither are there tears for those working for $6 an hour in Wal-Mart. If you are not satisfied with the income you earn, then get off your butt and do something about it. Do what Sam Walton did. Take out a loan, open one store, work hard and work smart, open up another store, work hard and work smart, open up a chain of stores, work hard work smart. Over time you may be successful. If you don't want to start a business, or just want to bump up your income a notch, set your goal, go back to school or get the experience you need, work hard and work smart, and apply for that job until you get it. If you aren't willing to take the time and trouble to do that, then quit whining about wanting a larger portion of the upper income earners hard earned money. If you don't want to do any of this or are simply not capable of doing this, then stay where you are at $6/HR, and use the talents you have to maximize your income. If you are physically or mentally disadvantaged and unable to obtain meaningful employment, then let the rest of us who are capable help you out by having an equal percentage of our incomes collected to do just that. "

Just a Thought wrote on Apr 20, 2008 12:33 PM:

" I already said there is a place for a social safety net, I agree with that concept wholeheartedly. But I also believe that putting the majority of our social conscience in the hands of one of the most innefficient business models (government) is a complete waste of time and money. Someone earlier referenced a Jewish carpenter....that same man also said "render unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar's". In essence he was saying, let the government do what it was intended to do, which is govern and leave the social work to those institutions skilled in helping the helpless...churches and other charitable organizations. That is where I want my money to go.

Am I to assume, mom of teens, that on your taxes this year, you told your accountant to forgo any or all of the available tax breaks and sent in more than what was required of you because you are so compassionate? If you really do have teens then, being the compassionate, well off person that you are, you would have not claimed them as dependants and skipped the income tax credit for them. If not, why not? Or were you greedy and wanted to keep the money for yourself? "

CW4RETIRED wrote on Apr 20, 2008 12:24 PM:

" To Mom of Teens: Where I disagree is when you think the government should determine how much money an individual can earn. We already tax the upper income earners at much higher tax rates than the lower income earners. Bill Gates didn't inherit his Billions. Ross Perot didn't inherit his Billions. Sam Walton didn't inherit his Billions. Each one of these top earners lived the American dream by using their talents to build successful businesses. Sam Walton started with virtually nothing and was trying to find a way to provide a better life for his current family and future generations of Waltons. So even for those that have inherited large sums of money, somewhere along the line it was probably earned by hard work and determination. That is what has drawn so many people from other countries to this nation. They wanted a chance to live the American dream of achieving financial security through hard work and freedom to choose their careers. Now the Democrats have determined this hard earned money should be taken from these people "for the good of everyone". Who will decide exactly how much of our earnings we should keep? So much for the American dream. "

CW4RETIRED wrote on Apr 20, 2008 12:07 PM:

" To Mom of Teens: I actually think you make some valid points. I agree that money influences politics. Rich donors who help pay for advertisements of certain candidates that give them an advantage. Rich candidates can often afford traveling in Jets and staying in fancy hotels, and get $400 haircuts as they campaign, but those candidates with little backing will never be presented by the media. I also think lobbyist and special interest groups have too much influence on our politicians. Still, the only way things will change is if everyone votes. Everyone's vote does count. It's not a perfect system by any means, but it is still better than some alternatives. "

mom-of-teens wrote on Apr 20, 2008 10:46 AM:

" And to just a thought (AGAIN and then I am SO done with you), once again you didn't address the elderly, you didn't address the disabled, and you didn't address those with mental illness! I guess they should all get off their duffs, get off their "FEEL GOOD" social programs and get to WORK!! "

mom-of-teens wrote on Apr 20, 2008 10:44 AM:

" To just a thought, as usual judging by your posts, you don't read, and you make assumptions that are incorrect. In one of my posts, I SAID, which you obviously didn't read that I didn't expect you to give away all your belongings. That's not what I am saying. And just the fact that you made the comment about social programs being "feel good programs" SHOWS not only do you NOT get it at ALL, but you don't understand the PURPOSE of social programs. Do you honestly think that people in poverty jump for joy everyday and shout from the rooftops, "GEE I'm glad I'm poor and have to live off social programs!! Your attitude and middle class prejudice is disgusting!! Do you NOT have a grandfather who is on Medicare?? You apparently don't have family who have EVER USED or benefitted from any type of social program whatsoever, and you obviously know NO ONE or have spoken to NO ONE who ever has?? My, you must live in a bubble?? A box perhaps?? Oh, no you couldn't possibly live in a box, then you would NEED social programs, and what would you think of yourself then?? And the FACT that I AM well off and STILL manage to feel the way I feel, just shows that it is possible to have what we have and still be COMPASSIONATE and work to make the world a better place where opportunities are available to everyone! YES, it CAN be done!! As far as the election comments go, elections can be bought, lobbyists and special interest groups with more money and more power and more to gain line pockets all the time, and the "little guy" is lost in the mix. "

dante wrote on Apr 20, 2008 9:49 AM:

" excellent. , now, im waiting for somebody to defend and cry for the oil companies and their ceo's. im thinking of taking up a collection for them right now, as soon as i wipe away these tears. stupid crying for the oppressed! do you guys get paid for saying this ? totally amazing. tears for billionaires. lobbyists. you gotta hate them. "

Just a Thought wrote on Apr 20, 2008 9:11 AM:

" For Emil and mom of teens...since you seem to be the most outspoken posters here reflecting the view from the left, I make you this challenge. Both of you obviously are not destitute since you can afford a computer and an ISP. So logically there are people in your community much worse off than you. Go find someone less fortunate than you, combine your two incomes/assets, split that down the middle and share equally and fairly.

My point is whereas the wealthy and abitious are not shy about making their claim to being able to keep what they earn, the liberals only spout off about fairness and so on. But I don't see it happening on a personal level, some individual taking the bull by the horns and creating equity themselves. So my conclusion is that the liberals can only offer feel good, pandering hypocrisy. "

CW4RETIRED wrote on Apr 20, 2008 9:07 AM:

" Emil Kashuntz: Let's see. You say the CEO of Wal-Mart makes 850 times the amount as some employees they hire who make $6 an hour. Ok, the CEO is responsible for the management of over 6,200 stores, which is 6,200 times the number of stores the employee working for $6 an hour is responsible for. As the largest private employer in the world, the CEO is responsible for over 1.5 million employees, which is probably 1.5 million times the number of employees the $6 an hour employee is responsible for. The CEO is responsible for the management of over $300 Billion in sales, which is probably $300 Billion more than the $6 an hour employee is responsible for managing. The CEO is also responsible for short and long term strategic planning. He's the one that has to answer to any potential law suits. He's the one who has to review, develop and manage implementation of corporate policies He's also the one responsible of transparent and accurate reporting of all financial documents. Just to understand how to run a corporation of this size he must have the adequate education and experience. I'm actually surprised he is only getting 850 times the wage of the $6/Hr employee. "

Just a Thought wrote on Apr 20, 2008 8:59 AM:

" I'm not against a social safety net, however, what we have in place now is not a safety net, it is a quagmire. When someone enters the social entitlement program, all incentive to leave is sucked out. You believe in parity, that everyone should be treated fairly. I believe in parity as well, but my idea of parity does not include bringing the sucessful down to mediocrity as raising the poor up to the same level. I believe that every person is entitled to bring themselves up to a greater level.

Our founding fathers did not write...Life, liberty and feel good government programs. They wrote.."Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." "

This is scary!!! wrote on Apr 20, 2008 7:52 AM:

" Hey Emil, since you called me a liar, here is another up to date website for you
http://www.angelfire.com/pa/sergeman/issues/healthcare/socialized.html
Look around there are links to articles and figures detailing widespread and specific problems in countries with varying degrees of socialized health care.
I want the RIGHT to choose when I will die and how much pain I will be in!!!! "

Just a Thought wrote on Apr 19, 2008 11:32 PM:

" So if I went out, busted my backside and was lucky and talented enough to make a billion dollars that in your mindset is greed, however someone at the lower end of the economic scale wants to take from me what I have earned for the sake of "fairness" that is "what is yours or your share".

As far as mom of teens saying they have no recourse, they do, it's called elections. You will accuse Republicans of scare tactics, buying, cheating or whatever party line dogma you want to use, but I think that the majority of people, deep down in their hearts, have the hope that they might be the next Bill Gates and really don't want the government to control their earning potential. Unfortunately because of the generations of entitlement, that hope and drive has been severely neutered. "

VoR wrote on Apr 19, 2008 11:00 PM:

" To Greedy republican, Wow...You are just sooooo awesome. We're all impressed with you're ability to take and keep what's yours. I can see your point (on the top of your head) You've made it from the depths of poverty to the heights of wealth and pomposity. And all without the aid of any social programs too. (I guess you were home schooled as well) Well since you were able to do it without assistance why should we help anyone else either right. I seem to recall something that an ancient carpenter said about your kind. Let's see, what was that again, do you remember? "

Emil Kashuntz wrote on Apr 19, 2008 10:59 PM:

" The people who make up the bottom twenty percent of the wage earners get 2% of the GDP. The people who make up the top 1% of the wage earners get 17% of the GDP. Now one might ask which group is the biggest drag on the economy? Those guys on the bottom are serving the hamburgers, stocking the shelves at Wal Mart, and doing a whole variety of things that keep us all going. A large percentage of that one percent on top, reached that position through inheritance, and actually do very little to contribute to society. Then they have the gal to ask for more breaks, and we have a president they bought that bends over to give it to them. "

wow wrote on Apr 19, 2008 9:09 PM:

" Emil the estate tax IS a death tax. Your estate gets taxed when you die and your estate is dispersed to the recipients. Why should it be taxed again? Oh, thats right you would like some other less fortunate people to get even more entitlements. WOW "

mom-of-teens wrote on Apr 19, 2008 8:41 PM:

" To just a thought, here is "just a thought". What makes you think that the poor are in ANY position to demand ANYTHING from the government or from you personally?? If you are just joining the conversation and have not read several posts, you would understand a basic concept. The poor in this country DON'T HAVE A VOICE!!! That is the problem! The ones with the voice are the ones with money, political pull and influence, and the ones who are lining the pockets of those in charge. Who would look out for the poor if social programs didn't exist. How you expect elderly, disabled, and people with mental illness to go out and work two or three jobs to make it in this economy is beyond me. You can sit there with your middle class attitude, but the fact of the matter is, your attitude is part of the problem! "

mom-of-teens wrote on Apr 19, 2008 8:35 PM:

" To greedy republican, at least you acknowledge the greed part, you can't change what you don't acknowledge as they say, the taxes you pay go to fund necessary social programs and that is as it SHOULD be. Deal with THAT. To Vetter, you are the one who is backwards and you bring nothing of value to the discussion, give it up. To just a thought, your post makes no sense. Necessity is the mother of invention, most inventions have benefited society AND make someone rich. Nothing wrong with that. I am all for invention, new technology, etc; NEVER said I wasn't; your post is not related in anyway to the topic at hand. Not sure why you bothered, but whatever. The point is that our society would thrive without poverty, without debt, and without GREED. Now I realize the truth hurts, but that's just the way it is. As far as the whole socialism thing (God we're back to THAT again), some financial experts would argue that the rebate check thing is also form of socialism, but Repubs favor that, don't they? "

Emil Kashuntz wrote on Apr 19, 2008 7:50 PM:

" To Just a thought, What a wonderful spin. You ask for what is yours, or your share, and you are coveting. Wow, what a spin. A man asking for a fair wage is coveting. Is it a sin to ask for your share? That is the Republican spin, believe it if you want. The peasants in the French revolution were coveting. What a sin? What about the CEO's asking for what they consider their share? Is that sinful coveting? You can do better than this. "

Just a Thought wrote on Apr 19, 2008 7:13 PM:

" Emil...just wondering....which is worse...greed or coveting? In your view, the poor are coveting what that rich have and through law, they DEMAND that it be taken away and distributed evenly, without concern to effort, talent and yes, even good fortune. So looking at it that way, I don't see any room for moral blustering. "

Emil Kashuntz wrote on Apr 19, 2008 7:09 PM:

" Many years ago my wife and I visited a plantation house in the south. The tour guide showed us how the area right under the front porch was a place they could lock up slaves they were having a problem with. It struck me as very strange that the plantation owner could sit on the porch and drink a mint julep, knowing people he had abused were in a dank cell right under him. How a person could so mistreat another human being and think so little of it. Then it occurred to me this was no doubt a Republican that went to church every Sunday, and had no doubt he was in God's grace. He probably though of himself as a great benefactor that had provided jobs for the fellows under the porch. After all they would be unemployed if he had not started the plantation. How ungrateful could they be? Luckily there was no socialism then or everyone would have been lazy and out of work. "

Just a Thought wrote on Apr 19, 2008 7:05 PM:

" Mom of teens.....let me ask this...Think of all the greatest advancements starting with the beginning of the Industrial Revolution up to today's technology, you know those things that make our lives better than what the paupers and serfs, or even the upper class, experienced. Now, name more than 5 that were developed out of pure benevolance and not out of the dream to become a rich person. Now, name one of those same advancements that probably made someone very rich that didn't benefit society as a whole, not just the wealthy. Now name one advancement that came out of a socialistic country. Capitalism and the ability, through hard work, determination and some luck, to dream and succeed has and will drive the advancements and comforts that we enjoy. "

Emil Kashuntz wrote on Apr 19, 2008 7:03 PM:

" Dear CWretired. Try this article, like to hear comments from the king of greed, seems like there is no objective proof that you have to pay more to get more from CEO's. The guy at the top of Wal Mart gets 850 times what the guy on the bottom makes. Let's see, what would $850 time $6 dollar s an hour be, he is getting almost five thousand dollars an hour. I am sure he is worth every penny, and of course he is entitled to it, after all who else could run up our debt with China?http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/19/business/yourmoney/19view.html?_r=1&scp=6&sq=Income+disparity&st=nyt&oref=slogin "

Emil Kashuntz wrote on Apr 19, 2008 6:47 PM:

" Only the Republicans could make a virtue out of greed, these are the same people that call the estate tax the death tax. It reminds me so much of Barbara Bush when she saw all the people trying to sleep and live in the Super Dome. Her remark was something like "This is better than what they are used to". She could have just as well said "Let them eat cake". These pigs have no shame. "

CW4RETIRED wrote on Apr 19, 2008 5:11 PM:

" Hi VoR. Great to see you here too. You and Bill Garrr always bring a smile to my face and give me a lot to ponder on. I am retired from the Army, but not old enough for Social Security. I'm 54 and still working. But, yes, I will be eligible for those funds as long as I meet the income criteria. My personal view is that Social Security was never intended to be anyone's only retirement plan. I would like to see it privatized for two reasons. First, and foremost, if it was in a private investment, the government could not dig into it to supplement pork projects. Second, long term, diversified investments would probably out perform Social Security benefits. The only real drawback I see is that the government would find a way to tax retirement distributions to make up for the dollars lost from Social Security.
I hope your wife doesn't beat you up too bad. My bruises from spending time on the dumbputer aren't showing as bad now. "

WOW wrote on Apr 19, 2008 4:32 PM:

" Hey Brad Mills, you mentioned only the top2% would have taxes raised by Billary or yourmama. Those 2% are the succesfull business people who drive the economy. If you hurt these folks we will all suffer when they stop trying to make more, they will stop making investments when they feel they will be working just to pay for societys lowlifes. Dems also admitted they would raise the capital gains tax from the current 15% to 20-25%. This would really stiffle the economy! Please know your facts before you engage your typing hand! "

Vetter wrote on Apr 19, 2008 4:26 PM:

" Mom of teens you're so backwards I don't think you know if you're coming or going,. "

Greedy republican wrote on Apr 19, 2008 2:46 PM:

" To mom-of-teens
I came from POVERTY and never used social programs. Today at 50, I am a millionaire. You make your own opportunities in this life. This self built empire will pass it's spoils onto MY family- deal with it.
"

To: Brad wrote on Apr 19, 2008 2:10 PM:

" When you stated endless lies, you must have been referring to the Clintons. (Watch out fot the sniper fire!!) "

mom-of-teens wrote on Apr 19, 2008 12:56 PM:

" To just a thought, or better YET, show us that EVERYONE can thrive and be successful if given the same opportunities as everyone else! I really think you repubs LIKE the idea of poverty, if there weren't poor people in this country, who would make you feel rich?? Who would make you feel better than everyone else?? Our country would THRIVE without poverty and without debt, what part of that don't you understand?? "

Rebecca wrote on Apr 19, 2008 12:06 PM:

" It is funny that he calls out the Republicans for socialism (which they do engage in, BTW) both parties are inconsistent in their stances and views. And those stances and views change on one thing alone; whether or not the other party agrees or disagrees. It is called polarization. If dems are for something, reps are the opposite and vice versa. Do you know what that is? It is a one party system whereby the people are tricked into believing it is a democracy by keeping the parties "divided". End result; those looking for power receive power and those who vote receive nothing in return. "

Just a Thought wrote on Apr 19, 2008 11:53 AM:

" I wonder, as long as I brought up the issue of the rich Democrats, have any of them taken advantage of the Republican tax cuts, or did they refuse to use them and pay in the taxes according to their party standards? You would think that they would pay in the extra amount either out of principle or "for the greater good"? "

VoR wrote on Apr 19, 2008 11:35 AM:

" CW4RETIRED, Good to see that you’ve started posting again. I wondered what had happened to ya. Most of the neocon types I’ve been reading lately seem to have real trouble forming decent (fact based) arguments. Even though I seldom totally agree with you, I must admit that you state your case well and often cause me to reevaluate my position. Just curious? Since you identify yourself as retired, do you receive any of that socialistic Social Security money? I’d also like to read your views on farm subsidies and public schools etc. One area I bet we do agree on, The weather today is fantastic. My wife will kill me if I sit at the dumbputer all afternoon, so I’ll check back in later. "

Just a Thought wrote on Apr 19, 2008 11:23 AM:

" I have a great idea...since the Democrats believe that the wealthy have too much money and the poor need some or most of it....why don't they lead by example. We've seen or heard about the tax returns for the leading candidates from the Democrats, none of them are hurting for money. We also know that the Kennedy's, Kerry's etal are wealthy beyond means. Why don't they show us dumb greedy Republicans how to make this country mediocre. Give away all of their fortunes and work just as hard as they do now for 45,000 a year. Show all of us that there is no reason for anyone to be sucessful. "

jetcity wrote on Apr 19, 2008 11:00 AM:

" The Euro is doing well because the European Union has actually started practicing more capitalism and Europe's social state is not the utopia the libs would like to believe. Unemployment is three times greater than in the U.S. The poor are still very poor and people are taxed at least 60% of their earnings. It has not lifted the poor up but has pulled everybody down. Do some research. "

Emil Kashuntz wrote on Apr 19, 2008 10:20 AM:

" To This is Scary. There are two possibilities either you are wrong, or the World Health Organizations Statistics are all wrong. Virtually everything you wrote is refuted by the World Health Organization. The WHO is part of the UN, so I am sure it is a bunch of leftist lies. "

Emil Kashuntz wrote on Apr 19, 2008 10:17 AM:

" Dear CW Please take the time to watch the program "Sick in America". You can watch it on the PBS site. Let me know one fact you dispute. The program cleary indicates the people in Englan, Japan, Germany, and Switzerland are very satisfied with the health care systems they have. The facts are indisputable. One thing you will learn in all those countries, is that people do not go bankrupt from health care cost. "

mom-of-teens wrote on Apr 19, 2008 10:04 AM:

" To CW4RETIRED, I said nothing about quality of care or patient satisfaction. You threw that in yourself. I was merely making the point that a doctor in Canada can have the same standard of living that a doctor here can have, since all you republicans are so worried about someone "stealing" your wealth and your standard of living. Republicans obviously want poor people around, who else would make them feel rich?? As far as quality of care, there are plenty of studies floating around, I'm sure, so and it depends on who you ask. I worked with a nurse from Canada TOO and she had nothing bad to say. SOME people would argue that quality of care "sucks" in America. No matter how perfect you Republicans think the current system is, there is always room for improvement. "

Honest Omar wrote on Apr 19, 2008 9:56 AM:

" Good letter, Brad. I can't wait for November. "

CW4RETIRED wrote on Apr 19, 2008 9:25 AM:

" To Emil Kashuntz: I notice in your last post that you didn't dispute the facts I presented that showed your claims were false. You simply use the typical far left tactic of changing the subject. I made my point. You were wrong. Like those who blindly follow liberal views or conservative views, you ignore the facts and make claims you can only support with emotion. "

This is scary!!! wrote on Apr 19, 2008 9:14 AM:

" Thus we clearly can show that the concept of nationalized healthcare stems from Germany, was adopted by England, and is being applied by the all after war Democrat administrations with ample help from the Republicans, and is used as the model for the currently planed system in America. Further we can see by plans in every nation to date that adopted national healthcare that the outcome of the adoption of any such system resulted in:
1) The general lowering of medical service quality.
2) Substantial overall cost increases for medical services.
3) The inability of government to financially sustain promised services.
4) The appliance by politicians to use plans to develop a dependency class, which can easily thereafter be used for political fodder.
5) The degeneration of services with the increase of police authority and in many cases eventual development of a police state.
6) The development of a scrape goat to blame for the inability to deliver the promised service. (As in SS: they are living longer!)
7) Reduction of services and long awaiting times for services. (not life critical services in Canada and England up to one year in some instances)
8) Shortages of doctors and nurses.
When you think on this issue you will do well to remember the resultant effect of nationalized health care upon other nations. Look to our neighbors in Canada whose favorite healthcare suppliers are across the border in America. Canada and England where you can wait up to eight months for an operation, where if you are over a certain age numerous medical procedures are forbidden. Canada where the present medical debate is turning towards privatization of medical services. England where the presently most popular option is private health insurance, due to long waiting times, curtailment of services, and deterioration of state health care across the board. Sure it’s free; but if you have to wait until you’re six feet under free is of little benefit.
http://www.newswithviews.com/socialism/socialism.htm

"

interesting wrote on Apr 19, 2008 9:04 AM:

" From world net daily on Canada's health care published August 2006.
How sad is this??
""This is a country in which dogs can get a hip replacement in under a week," he told the New York Times earlier his year. "Humans can wait two to three years. ..."
"Long waits for medical and hospital services are the system's chief symptom of failure. The causes are many, not least a steady exodus of young Canadian doctors to the U.S. – which means, of course, that Canadians are training many doctors to work elsewhere."
read the story-http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51690

Having immediate family in Norway, they say their Doctors are good but treatment for cancer came too late because of long waiting lines.......you can literally die waiting for socialized health care because there is no other place to go. "

dante wrote on Apr 19, 2008 8:51 AM:

" rasmus, we all know, in our deepest inner consciouness, that bush did nothing selfish or stupid, that he did it all for the good of his country, his God, and all mankind. a selfless leader, driven by this one goal...... okay, Totally Ridiculous Fantasy Theater is over, kids. back to stark naked reality. where's my checkbook....."pay to the order of"......CHINA? is that right? hey, arent those guys COMMUNISTS? "

Emil Kashuntz wrote on Apr 19, 2008 8:48 AM:

" Our saviors the rich bring us the sun that shines, and the air we breath. When the people in North Dakota needed phone service, electricity, and many of the other necessities of life did the rich provide them? No, people formed all the cooperatives that still exist today. A cooperative is nothing more than socialism pure and simple. With a cooperative you end up with jobs and a service or product you need. There is no fat cat taking a cut, so the product or service cost less. The main point is the rich let North Dakota down in a time of need because they wanted to extract too high a price. These are the heroes of the conservative party. Now this same bunch doesn't want to pay their share of taxes? "

Emil Kashuntz wrote on Apr 19, 2008 8:43 AM:

" Dear CW freemarket did a great job of explaining the scam and illusion created by Social security. Social Security is a tax plain and simple, but the right wing never adds it into the formula. "

Rasmus` wrote on Apr 19, 2008 7:36 AM:

" Why is it that when the "credit card bill" comes to the US Treasury after a Republican spending binge, people complain about the taxes going up? Just where is the logic? Bush reduced taxes - supposedly, I didn't see a reduction - and increased spending, started a war in Iraq resulting in higher gas prices, and now some think we should continue into this abyss of debt. For a historical view of our national debt: http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm "

Brad Mills wrote on Apr 19, 2008 7:06 AM:

" In response to this: 'I know if a dem gets in the White House I will be paying way more taxes'. That is actually false. Both Democratic candidates have said they will raise taxes only for the top 2% income bracket. The only way you will pay more taxes is if you are making over about $200K/year. Another way you will pay more taxes is by voting Republican. Republican income tax cuts, both at the state and federal level, always force local communities to raise property taxes and sales taxes to pay for things like education, which hit the lower income brackets the hardest. "

CW4RETIRED wrote on Apr 19, 2008 5:26 AM:

" To Mom of Teens: One scientific survey done in socialist China was reported by Health Affairs which stated this: "Not surprisingly, the private sector outperformed the public sector in the surveyof patient satisfaction. Asked about their last encounterwith their doctor, privatepatients gave consistently higher ratings than public patients for eighteen oftwenty-one items (Exhibit 7). In particular, more private than public patients said that they would recommend their doctor to relatives and friends." I also work with a nurse from Canada who moved down here because she claims our system provides better treatment and better accessbility. So maybe you need to do a little more research yourself before you make such broad claims. Once again the left presents unproven statements as facts to prove a point. "

CW4RETIRED wrote on Apr 19, 2008 5:12 AM:

" To Emil Kashuntz : You're wrong when you say the rich pay less in percentage of taxes. According to the Tax Foundation the average tax rate in 2005 ranges from 2.98 percent of income for the bottom half of the earning spectrum to 23.13 percent for the top 1 percent. That's exactly opposite of what you stated. Once again, the left makes up its own facts and presents them as truth to make a point.
"

freemarketradical wrote on Apr 19, 2008 12:10 AM:

" The largest socialism/redistribution of wealth is not income tax it is the payroll taxes of social security and medicare. It is the highest tax many( probably most) people pay. It transfers wealty from the young (usually poorer) to the old (usually richer). Rich people are mostly exempt, they get a break. The lower income earners pay over 20% combined taxes on these. When CW4retired says the top 25 % of the earners pay 86% of the income taxes, it is true, but misleading. Everybody knows the Social Security Trust Fund is a Fairy Tale. Excess SS payments help to pay for our military, farm programs, education, health care , ect. The poor and lower income earners are paying their share in taxes, it is just not called income taxes, even though that is what it actually is. As a conservative I think the writer got it completely correct. "

mom-of-teens wrote on Apr 18, 2008 11:36 PM:

" How is it that socialism gives the government control over our lives?? Please explain that to me, because in countries where socialism is practiced, people still have choices. I reject the argument that the government will have more control over our lives; if by that you mean more money, then yeah; but people in Canada and other socialist countries still have freedoms. The point is that everyone is given an opportunity to thrive and succeed! Isn't that a GOOD thing?? In these countries poverty is less, unemployment is less (no, work ethic is NOT diminished, that's an ignorant myth) and quality of life is still good. A doctor in Canada even though he is technically employed by the government can still rake in 200,000+ a year.... those of you that think there can't be a healthy balance between our selfish capitalist system and other countries fair systems, do some research or visit those countries and interview the citizens before you jump to such rash conclusions. While you're at it, put it in a documentary and sell it to HBO and make a HUGE profit that you can blow on YOURSELF!! "

jetcity wrote on Apr 18, 2008 11:30 PM:

" To notafundamentalist, I am not wealthy and am toward the bottom of middle class and in the past have been poor....working poor. I know if a dem gets in the White House I will be paying way more taxes, like I did when good ol Clinton was potus and I had even less money to scrape by on. I guess personally, for me, I was worse off financially under his administration. Apparently, those poorer than me have more of a voice than I do. I never received any of the help they have access to. Bill G-A-R-R, I have a problem with the polygamists in Texas and Utah forcing young girls into marraige. I don't have a problem with multiple wives, if they all consent. "

VoR wrote on Apr 18, 2008 10:15 PM:

" To Emil Kashuntz, Well stated as usual. If only Amused, jet city, Law, Vetter, Dubbles and the rest of the neocon puppets could actually move to this tax less, market controlled, free trade, utopia, driven by the lust for bigger profits and devoid of all social programs. I strongly suspect that before long they would discover how soulless and empty this world dominated by a doctrine of minimal government and the pursuit of individual self-interest without economic intervention or restraint like tariffs, duties and other state enforced restrictions would be. I know it's not a place I'd want myself or anyone I cared for to live. I like having public schools, roads, a system to help the poor and disabled, subsidies for those who provide essential goods & services (like farmers) and a military under civilian authority. If that's socialism then I'm a socialist. "

dante wrote on Apr 18, 2008 10:13 PM:

" the multi-millionaire lobby must be shelling out.... oh,.... nothing.... for their continued support here. indoctrination into the party; the back room, of course; is enough for some. praise o'reilly! "

Emil Kashuntz wrote on Apr 18, 2008 9:58 PM:

" Dear Seven. Let me get this straight, fewer people work in socialist countries? How is it then that they all have better health care. Where did you get the idea that fewer people contribute to the welfare of a their country in a socialist country? This is common right wing mythology. When people are surveyed and asked about their satisfaction with life, socialist countries usually end up having a greater satisfaction level than the United States. They get more vacation, better health care, are better educated, live longer and have a lower infant mortality rate. What is wrong with that? Well it just don't seem right. All that sharin leads to notin but evil. "

Emil Kashuntz wrote on Apr 18, 2008 9:52 PM:

" To HCW What did your kids do to deserve it? Are we back in the old days of the King? I am the King, I die and make my son the King. Is that the kind of world you want? The Estate tax is one way we can prevent a class of royalty from taking over our country. Bush has done a lot to institute an Aristocracy in this country. Are we going to start in our country what we fled Europe to escape? It is amazing in a world where so many do without that right wing greed mongers have the gall to justify more for themselves at the expense of everyone else, and then have the audacity to think they can convince people their greed serves a higher purpose. Were it not for the rich trickling on us we would all be working or Cooperatives, and heaven help the poor people that do. Rain would not fall if not for the rich, grapes would not grow without their blessing. There was never a job until the first rich man breathed air and gave normal people jobs. If the rich were gods intended people why was it them that always bore the brunt of revolutions? No one ever rebelled against the poor. You can fool some of the people some of the time, but you will have to fool the rest of the people some other time. "

Emil Kashuntz wrote on Apr 18, 2008 9:37 PM:

" Let get this straight, in dollars the wealthy may give more, but as a percent they actually give less, just like they pay less tax. Government figures show the wealthy give three percent to charity, the middle and lower class typically give ten percent. One more common distortion foisted on the ignorant. If a rich person works all day and give his day's wages away, and a poor person does the same thing, they both gave away a days work. Just because the rich person thinks his work was worth more doesn't make it so in the eyes of the lord. The lord knows he is decieving no one but himself. "

notafundamentalist wrote on Apr 18, 2008 8:27 PM:

" To jetcity, poor people in this country don't have a voice, you apparently aren't giving them one either, how sad is that; enjoy your spoils. "

HCW wrote on Apr 18, 2008 8:20 PM:

" Emil: You say "all men are created equal" and say you shouldn't leave more than a million to your kids. Are you saying that you should leave the excess to someone else's kids? Why? What did they do to deserve it? If I donate to charity throughout my life, and leave a surplus to my kids, why do you think I should I should donate more to others? If I earned it, I should decide what to do with it. Also, the wealthy pay most of the taxes in this country and give more money to charity than the rest. So, who is funding your social programs? The wealthy! "

seven gone wrote on Apr 18, 2008 8:02 PM:

" emil: you answered your own question. with insurance, everyone, yes everyone pays.with socialism everyone does not pay. but they expect the same benefits nonetheless. further, with insurance payment is upfront annually by a fee, but also ongoing --- if one has multiple accidents with their vehicle and demonstrate themselves to be a bad risk, their premiums/charges do rise. not the case with socialism either. "

mom-of-teens wrote on Apr 18, 2008 8:02 PM:

" Aaron, don't forget Denmark!! They are also ranked #1 as the happiest people in the world! HMMM wonder why! "

mom-of-teens wrote on Apr 18, 2008 7:56 PM:

" Excellent article Brad! You hit the nail on the head, so to speak. Unfortunately, we won't be able to hit the heads that REALLY need it; like some on this board who just don't get it! Those who want to constantly cry socialism, if they actually thought long and hard about it, would realize that they benefit from social programs too, but again, they are too good to realize the "help" they receive from the government is no different. And spineless?? As if Georgie ISN'T spineless?? GIVE ME A BREAK!! "

BILL G-A-R-R wrote on Apr 18, 2008 7:55 PM:

" I'm curios as to how Vetter, jetcity and all the right wingers feel about these polygamists that are in Texas and Utah Are they pro or con? let me know ok? "

History Dog wrote on Apr 18, 2008 7:40 PM:

" The French Revolution was the birth of Democracy in that country. The people rose up against the Aristocracy that was squandering the countries resources on themselves. When the peasants cut the heads off the people who had oppressed them for years, perhaps they were "hateful" in the eyes of the Aristocrats that lost their head to the guillotine, but what could have inspired such hate. Surely there were dingers at that time saying the people calling for justice were hateful. "

CW4RETIRED wrote on Apr 18, 2008 6:54 PM:

" Seriously, this talk about redistribution of wealth has a familiar, sickening ring to it. I lived in Germany for 5 years and was there when the wall came down and both sides, east and west, spewed tears of joy to be reunited. However, after many of the East Germans took jobs, their work ethics came to the West with them. They were used to getting paid the same, no matter how hard or how little they worked. In the East, they had no incentive to work harder or smarter. Their standard of living remained the same. It didn't take long before employers in the West began to refuse applicants from East Germany. So bring on the socialism, dems. That seems to be all you have to offer, and it's not good. "

CW4RETIRED wrote on Apr 18, 2008 6:53 PM:

" Wait....I've got it!!!! Let's take income from everyone making $200,000 a year or more and put it into a centralized national redistribution fund. Then each month, the government can distribute the money equally to all U.S. citizens and illegal aliens while keeping enough in the pot to pay for healthcare and pork barrel projects. That way, it won't matter if you use your talents and hard work to be financially successful. The government will dictate to you how much you should have and spread the rest out among everyone else. Finally, I see what the democrats are talking about. Those pesky rich people that have more than what they deserve need to give up a huge portion of their income to raise the standard of living for everyone. Those rich people have a lot of gall taking advantage of our competitive capitalistic market system by outperforming competitors and making all that money. "

CW4RETIRED wrote on Apr 18, 2008 6:51 PM:

" The tax foundation revealed the following figures on 2005 tax returns. The top-earning 25 percent of taxpayers (AGI over $62,068) earned 67.5 percent of the nation's income, but they paid more than four out of every five dollars collected by the federal income tax (86 percent). The top 1 percent of taxpayers (AGI over $364,657) earned approximately 21.2 percent of the nation's income (as defined by AGI), yet paid 39.4 percent of all federal income taxes. That means the top 1 percent of tax returns paid about the same amount of federal individual income taxes as the bottom 95 percent of tax returns." That doesn't sound like the "tax break for the rich" as democrats claim, has had much effect. "

Brad Mills wrote on Apr 18, 2008 6:49 PM:

" In response to the following: 'FYI Brad has been spouting defeatist, anti-American rants for years now.

I am only speaking the truth, so I guess the truth is now "defeatist" and "anti-American". So, maybe we should all embrace the distorted reality of the right-wing so that we can all be "winners" and "American". And when I say "we", I mean the 81% of Americans who believe the country is headed in the wrong direction. "

Emil Kashuntz wrote on Apr 18, 2008 6:33 PM:

" The amazing welfare cheat. Somehow he is the focus of our rath. All the people on welfare consume less than 2 percent of the GDP, but they are the problem. The 5 percent on top that take 90 percent of the GDP are saints. Now, who is really ripping off the middle class? Of course the guy on top would love to have you think it is the bum down the street, be the reality is he doesn't get that many beans. Naturally the people who crank out the propaganda want you to focus on the poor, they are easy to see, and easy to blame, while the fat guy walks off with the prize. "

Albert Diddlefritz wrote on Apr 18, 2008 6:16 PM:

" I would like to join a church that supports the doctrine of tax breaks for the wealthy, does anyone know of such a religion? My current church is always preaching sharing and love for my fellow man. I think I have done enough and it is time to take care of myself, and my kids. "

Emil Kashuntz wrote on Apr 18, 2008 6:10 PM:

" Law, I love the way that when you are asked to share, you convert my views into hateful sentiment for the rich. What is hateful about asking a person not to have such a selfish view of life? You have the audacity to call me hateful when you refuse to admit those with less might be entitled to a better chance. I can find nothing more hateful than an attitude of " You can have yours after I get mine". What could be more hateful than the sense of the rich when they feel they have such a big entitlement? When one percent of the population gets seventeen percent of the income, that strikes me of hateful concerning your fellow man. Which person would you call hateful, the one taking the side of the rich, or the one supporting unlimited greed? Maybe they changed the definition last night. "

Ezra wrote on Apr 18, 2008 6:04 PM:

" On public television within the last week Frontline presented a program call "Sick in America". You can see the program online if you go to the PBS site. The program was done by a reporter that lived all over the world. In the program he visited Japan, Switzerland, England, Taiwan, and Germany. In each of those countries he found far better health care than what is available to the average American at a lower cost, with better results. Each of these countries would be considered more socialistic than the U. S. In each country the people were well satisfied with the care they recieved. Please some selfish right wing person come on a say this is not true. Be sure NOT to watch the program before you tell us about someone who had an unsatisfactory outcome in some socialist country. No on has ever had a bad outcome in this county, especially those on the lower end of the income scale. The best part of the program was a conservative government elected official who admitted he would not go back to the old system of selfishness. Huff and puff and give me some propaganda about how good the American system is, which has the highest drug costs in the world thanks to the Bush alliance with the drug companies. "

Emil Kashuntz wrote on Apr 18, 2008 5:45 PM:

" Would someone opposed to socialism please tell me the difference between socialism and insurance. As I understand insurance, everyone pays, and those who suffer are taken care of. Everyone who buys car insurance does not have a wreck, yet they pay for those who do. What is wrong with this concept, it is applied to many human situations. Of course there is insurance fraud, and there is social fraud, does that mean the system should not be used? Some ding dong will step up and say insurance is voluntary, oh yeah, car insurance is voluntary. "

Emil Kashuntz wrote on Apr 18, 2008 5:38 PM:

" Dear Amused you must live in a pretty bad neighborhood. Just about everyone in my little burg works or is retired, there is no bunch of freeloaders. Even if there are freeloader, should we punish their children for their poor work habits? I don't advocate people living well without working, and social programs promote work, and the return to work. "

Emil Kashuntz wrote on Apr 18, 2008 5:35 PM:

" Dear Law, If you know anything about the Law, you can pass on one million unencumbered by taxes, I would say that is a pretty good start. Secondly anyone with an once of creativity could easily pass on tax free much more than that. How much of a head start does a person need? We are not an aristocracy. Titles and kingdoms are something we are trying to get away from. Are your kids so pathetic that they cannot make it with a million dollar head start? Think about it, if you have over a million to pass on to your kids, you probably already gave them a very good education, and many advantages other kids will never have. What happened to "All men a created equal"? "

amused wrote on Apr 18, 2008 4:42 PM:

" to Emil Kashuntz - wow your a funny man! and I quote "Who are they? Where are they? How do they do it?" HA HA HA HA HA Here's a clue- they're Babies breeding babies living the third generation family tradition of being allergic to work! They are in your neighborhood and mine. They have nothing to do with real people in need in this world but reap all the benefits just the same! It's a shame most "real" people in need are too proud to use the benefits!
free health care- fuel assistance- food stamps- food pantries- housing assistance....free college access...etc etc........all democrat driven social programs. I don't think rich people have access to any of this.
"

Law wrote on Apr 18, 2008 4:23 PM:

" Once again Emil your hatred of successful people comes through. Do you want to pass your lifelong accumulations on to your kids. If the answer is yes then how come others can't. I myself want what is mine to do with as I please. Spend it, give it away or save it. I don't need the govt telling me what should be done with MY money. "

jetcity wrote on Apr 18, 2008 3:36 PM:

" Democrats are great advocates for the poor............they need alot of poor people to vote for them. "

jetcity wrote on Apr 18, 2008 3:34 PM:

" Emil, you completely missed my point. I believe in helping those in need, but why would you want to give the government more control over your life? The dems cross the line for me. "

Emil Kashuntz wrote on Apr 18, 2008 2:45 PM:

" All this talk about a welfare class freeloading, sounds like leftover stuff from the sixties or seventies. Who are they? Where are they? How do they do it? One more scary story that just isn't true. Are the trust babies, and inheritance crowd welfare recipients? It would seem by the popular right wing definition, anyone who gets, but does not give, is on welfare. By that definition all the worthless bums living on inheritance are on welfare. However, if you are wealthy and on welfare that is fine. Farm Subsidies by right wing definition are a socialist idea. Some one step to the plate and call all the good subsidized farmers socialist. When the rich are subsidized it is call government stimulating business, when it is the poor, it is socialism. How could anyone describe Jesus as anything but a socialist? Jesus did not go around advocating tax breaks for the money changers in the temple. The Jesus jazz is fine until you actually have to share as he instructed, then it goes out the window. "

Vetter wrote on Apr 18, 2008 2:15 PM:

" Well said jetcity..... "

jetcity wrote on Apr 18, 2008 1:42 PM:

" Yes, our society has some programs that may or may not be considered 'socialism'. The point is liberals want the government to nanny the people, where we will all end up equally poor and find ourselves under an oppresive regime where there would be no hope to better your life. Work ethics will go out the door. Again, I ask, have you had health care at the VA? Ask the British what they think of their government run dental care. Liberals have been brainwashed by those who want absolute power over the masses. They want to be like Europe. This country is a great country....not becuase it has been run by socialism, which is too close of a step towards communism than I am comfortable with. Socialism is not freedom. "

NDr wrote on Apr 18, 2008 1:32 PM:

" MR, you need to pray with thanks that none of your family have or ever will use any of the social programs. Unfortunately, some of us have family that were born with mental illness, developmental disabilities, physical disabilities, disease, and other problems that do not allow them to contribute to society and without these programs would surely result in their dying in the streets. I'm sorry but there are somethings that pure capitalism falls very short on. Taking care of those without is one of them. Call it socialism if you want, but I call taking care of those people properly the human and godly thing we can do in a society. It's what seperates a civilized society from an uncivilized one. "

Aaron wrote on Apr 18, 2008 1:18 PM:

" To Vetter: Socialist countries that work: Western Europe, Scandinavia, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and....the good ol' U.S. of A. I assume you were thinking of Cuba, China, and the old Societ Union, but I am sorry to tell you socialism is an integral part of western-style democracies. "

Beesh wrote on Apr 18, 2008 12:01 PM:

" Public roadways, works, services and mail are not socialism because it does not level every class of citizen to the same level by punishing one class and benefiting another by seizure and redistribution of wealth.

Nice try, but you are explaining apples while pointing to oranges. "

Vetter wrote on Apr 18, 2008 11:11 AM:

" Sorry nailed it. Any of you from the democrat party care to show me one socialist country that works/worked? Liberals do nothing for this country, except tare it down, tell people how they need to live their lives, how much money they can make, etc..... How you people think it's ok to let the government run every aspect of your life is beyond words. Brad you had it partially right, and it is NOT socialist, the government is there to protect the citizens of this country, again not run every aspect of their life. "

ryanm424 wrote on Apr 18, 2008 9:53 AM:

" Churches giving to the poor is not socialism because the church won't send the gestapo after people who choose not to pay in. "

MR wrote on Apr 18, 2008 9:43 AM:

" One of the definitions of socialism as stated on dictionary.com is it is "a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole." I would have to say that the social programs in this letter would fit right in with this definition. By the way one BIG form of socialism in the US that hasn't been mentioned yet is welfare and its many "branches". Sorry said "Paying taxes/fees and never personnally seeing the benefit for yourself, family or community is socialism. " My family nor I will ever use any of these programs because we make too much. I guess I see other people in my community receiving these benefits, but I don't see what you would consider socialism if I see no one benefit at all from the taxes/fees. "

lw wrote on Apr 18, 2008 9:21 AM:

" Good comment, "Sorry". "

BILL G-A-R-R wrote on Apr 18, 2008 9:09 AM:

" Dear Brad Mills, Excellent letter. I couldn't have said it better myself. ''They and their party have nothing to offer America but endless war, national debt, hate, fear and division, corruption and endless lies.'' You nailed ''Dubbles'' perfectly. Another perfect example of a desperate republican who will swallow any internet lie/rumor that comes down the pike. Thank you Brad, look forward to reading more from you. "

Packers73 wrote on Apr 18, 2008 9:01 AM:

" I'm still chuckling, this guy has no clue what socialism is. And, neither does a majority of Americans. Dubbles, I agree with you. "

Reply to Dubbles wrote on Apr 18, 2008 8:52 AM:

" Love your classic Guns, Gays, and God approach, plus the other little insinuations. Perhaps you can join the crowd that ciruclate false urban legends and help bring us another fine president like Mr. Bush. "

MamaMia wrote on Apr 18, 2008 8:41 AM:

" Excellent letter, Brad. Well said! "

Understand wrote on Apr 18, 2008 8:31 AM:

" I understand the points, but for the record Al Gore didn't develop the internet nor did the US Government, it was pioneered by the folks at the University of California. As far as public roads goes, those are paid for by user fees, and unfortunately there are some places that are selling their roads to private companies. "

Sorry wrote on Apr 18, 2008 8:07 AM:

" Paying taxes/fees for infrastructure and every thing else you listed are not socialist ideas. Pooling money together to save everyone money is not a socialist idea. Paying for stamps to have someone mail a letter is not a socialist idea. To claim they are is stretching the definition of the word. Paying taxes/fees and never personnally seeing the benefit for yourself, family or community is socialism. Paying taxes/fees and having everything owned by the state is socialism. Brad would like us to believe investing in your family, community, stocks, etc. come from socialist ideas, in fact it is capitalism at it's best.

FYI Brad has been spouting defeatist, anti-American rants for years now. I suggest considering his opinions moot. He considers himself above everyone else, any disagreement and he instantly labels you a "facist", "freak" or some other baiting term. Instead of trolling in the newspapers he should be out trolling for fish, with a little self-reflection time. "

Emil Kashuntz wrote on Apr 18, 2008 8:01 AM:

" Republicans love to relabel things. The reality is Socialism implies sharing. The Republicans have made a virtue out of greed and given sharing a bad name. When people pool resources for the common good is that a bad thing? If so then every socialist cooperative in North Dakota is evil according to the Republicans. The typical song and dance of the Republicans is that only greed can provide a good living for people. How did North Dakota end up with a State Bank, a state mill, and large cooperatives like Basin? These institutions show people can thrive without a greedy class of parasites taking the profit. All the people who believe socialism is such a bad thing should stop shopping at Cenex, REI, and the host of other socialist organizations. According to the Bible you do not have a choice about tithing. If this is true when a church gives to the poor it is socialism, be sure to quite going to church. A monastary would be the classic case of socialism. "

BabyT wrote on Apr 18, 2008 7:54 AM:

" Thank you Brad for someone actually explaining what socialism is! People tend to hear socialism and hear communist Russia. That was a form of socialism, just as our government spending is socialism. And don't forget about our ND economy. It would virtually collapse if our government started abandoning socialism and completely pulled out all farm programs. Farm subsidies are a form of socialism. "

Good Letter Until .... wrote on Apr 18, 2008 7:33 AM:

" The letter was pretty good and the point well made until it deteriorated into party politics unsupported by facts. "

Dubbles wrote on Apr 18, 2008 5:41 AM:

" I can rest assured knowing that Barrack Huesein Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton will not be president of this country. They are spineless. I want a president who will stand firm against terrorism and if we are attacked again, I dont want a spineless goof ball like Obama to just say Ohh Mr. Terrorist, please dont do that again. He also wants to disarm our military and would love to take our guns away. Yeah, I can already see it, Obama and Clinton, will not be president of this country. "

Post Your Own Comment
(optional)
   
All online comments are limited to 350 words total.
Comments are reviewed for taste, tone and language before posting.
Some comments may be used in the Tribune's print edition.
We value and respect your privacy, but The Bismarck Tribune might
disclose certain information to governmental entities if served with subpoena.
Local Headlines:

North Dakota News

Bismarck News

Recent Headlines:
LOADING

Copyright © 2009 Bismarck Tribune, a division of Lee Enterprises.  -PRIVACY POLICY