Wolf: making up a misleading story damages your credibility. The public does not 'look at the issue' behind the lie. The public is stupid. The story is designed to employ sympathy or create a crisis when there is none.

The fact that he must use these is sad. Being straightforward, would require him to be candid: 'I want to raise your taxes to pay for more govt entitlements'--that would be straightforward.

Oregon,
I get the opposite impression. I think there is so much dissatisfaction with both candidates that a lot of people will just refuse to show up or not care enough to show up. I liked McCain a lot better than Bush, and the Demos really didn't have a stud candidate, Al Gore had to be there by default, and he doesn't excite anyone...

Iowanian: sorry, IOW, is short for In Other Words. Not common, but I use it. Wasnt responding to your post.

I think Mr. Fly hit the big nail on the big head. Campaign "promises" are just a wish list spewed by both parties assuming congress will rubber stamp the whole package. (Then, after hell freezes over) - They aren't "lies" told just to give the public what they want to hear by either candidate.
This is what I find flimsy in Bush's attacks that "nothing has been done" on prescription drugs for seniors in 7 years, etc.. Of course action has been taken on almost every goal of the current administration. The fact is, getting a consensus among the swine at the trough in congress has always been next to impossible. It's tradition. Bush asserts "You can blame somebody else for your failures but blah, blah". Yes, they can blame somebody else. Just as he will when he gets sandbagged on every issue he tries to address should he win the election. Making excuses is highly Presidential, and he'll learn fast.
Respectfully, on another note, generalizing that only women are succeptible to personal interest "boring drivel" storys is a wee bit condescending. There are every bit as many gullible males in this country as women.

Well if the public is stupid, GW has the edge, because Gore was confusing the hell out of them with the numbers. http://www.ChiefsPlanet.com/ubb/smile.gif

BTW, anyone have any thoughts on the campaign finance reform thing? Gore seemed to be real passionate about that but Bush seemed to avoid it as much as he could there at the end...

Durtman,

There have been Presidents that have been very successful at passing legislation in a hostile Congress.

Reagan immediately comes to mind.

Bush doesn't blame Gore for not trying, he says it's time to elect someone that CAN get it done.

Luz
slight clarification...

Luz-
Convince me that Bush will inherit the Reagan consensus mantle.

Luz,

"Someone who can get it done" is a line used every election by an opposing candidate. Why exactly would Bush be more successful? Would he cave in on the tax thing like his pops did? Bush can say all he wants, but we never really know until a guy reaches office. He's never been in Washington, it is very easy to say "I will get everyone to work together." Doing it is a totally different animal...

Wolf,

The reason I think that a lot more voters will show up are a few.

1. A closer race makes many feel that their vote counts for more.

2. A lot of angry Republican men who believe that Character Counts, will show up in masses to speak their vote.

3. Younger voter turnout.

4. Lot at stake in the future.

5. Women voter turnout.

6. Minority voters growing.


Any others ?


[This message has been edited by Oregon Chief Fan (edited 10-04-2000).]

Just how big is that lockbox anyway? Bigger than a bread box? http://www.ChiefsPlanet.com/ubb/confused.gif

And I wish that just once, GW would have said as his rebuttal, "Jim, I'm going to donate my time to the Vice President since he still hasn't answered your question." http://www.ChiefsPlanet.com/ubb/tongue.gif

------------------
Frodo lives!!

Go Chiefs!!

RE younger voter turnout, unfortunately I heard a report on one of the news stations the other day that said younger voters were real apathetic about both candidates because they felt they were being ignored by both in favor of the elderly and other such groups, and they interpreted that as likely that the young voter turnout will be less than stellar, and they interviewed a few "outraged" young voters. I felt that it was unfortunate if that is what is going to happen...

I haven't read all the post in this topic, but has anyone explained who are these evil people that make up the "Richest 1%"? I always thought that they were Americans who pay the highest percentage of taxes, provide jobs and move the economy. I didn't realize they deserved to be punished for their obvious luck. Maybe there is something to this flat tax idea.<BR>

Wolf,

I noticed that as well about campaign finance.

Who knows if it will actually happen, but Gore said the first issue he wanted to address if elected was campaign finance, but when Bush addressed the issue in the debate all he could do is attack Gore for the way Gore financed his campaign. He said nothing about actually doing something about once in office if elected.

Wolf: I tend to believe that and I also believe it will get even worse as the boomers continue to age.

Social Security and Medicare will be what drives elections. Speaking to the younger people would involve options to eliminate these burdensome programs as those on them die off.

MrBlond: Class envy works for the democrats. The other 99% are jealous of those 1% and therefore it plays well with the masses.

Cannibal/Wolf: on campaign finance, now there is ONE area where there will be no changes. There are two options to change the way campaigns are financed:

1. Eliminate hard donations limits and require FULL disclosure of where the donations are coming from.

2. Continue the same convoluted system with Soft Money limits as well which would require a change in the 1st ammendment.

I believe #1 is the best of those two evils since I dont contribute to campaigns.

[This message has been edited by KCTitus (edited 10-04-2000).]

Do you really think men are as touched about sob stories as women? Is that what guys go to the movies to see? My statement was an observation. Why else would these candidates being going on Oprah? Get real.<P>

Wolf,

A little insight on younger voters ( I am a younger voter)

Many friends I have will show up. Do not believe the poll's, take your own polls, ask some young people.

BTW the young voters are being addressed by GW, with the promise of getting a small portion of our money back. Do not be surprised by a large young voter turnout going GW's way.

I too believe that an across the board tax cut is at hand. There is nothing wrong with the 1%ers' getting a cut too. They earned it , why are they not entitled to receive a tax cut when the rest are getting one?


[This message has been edited by Oregon Chief Fan (edited 10-04-2000).]

[This message has been edited by Oregon Chief Fan (edited 10-04-2000).]

The 1%'s are not entitled to a tax cut because if it wouldn't be for them making so much money, the rest of us would be able to make more money. {This is only true if their is a finite source of wealth, which we know that isn't true.)

------------------
bk

Fly-
I made an observation as well. That men are as gullible as women. There are 96 sob stories on this thread and counting.
Real

Here's the deal....

Vote for Gore and the dems if you think:

The government isn't big enough now.
The government will take care of you.
You will recieve better medical care if the government is in charge.
The government should babysit your kids while mom is at work.
Our current school system can be fixed by throwing more teachers at it.
The country's untapped oil should not be touched.

Vote for Bush and the repubs if you think:

Government is too big now and the ability to expand should be limited by tax cuts.
You think that the top 1% taxpayers deserve some of their money back.
The answer to high oil prices is to open up Alaska.
Testing teachers/kids in our school system is fair game.

These are the basic issues I am looking at. I am basically conservative and the thought of Gore and a dem controlled congress scare the $hit out of me.

Oregon,
I too am a young voter here in NoCal, and the feeling I get from my peers is that none of the candidates are very appealing. A couple of people here in regards to the Bush plan to give money back jokingly say, "Yeah, they'll get their money and go waste it or lose it trying to play stocks, then they'll come back to the government begging for more." Now I don't necessarially share these opinions, I think people can be responsible with their money and if they do get their money back, it is theirs to do as they wish. But that is a big feeling I get from around here...

I was just home for lunch. The press is all over the story about the girl standing in class. It was a lie, confirmed by the principal.

Campain reform, My take was that Bush didn't want to quit getting what he has in the middle of a fight. Gore hates that 1% but he sure spends quite a bit of time begging money from them....but I forgot, The "hollywood" types like the Balwins probably live off of free cheese and peanut butter and have the rent in their modest homes paid by the government plan.

KC...

How is the 1%er not getting a tax break going to improve your wealth?



[This message has been edited by Oregon Chief Fan (edited 10-04-2000).]

Just got this off of CNN.com:

An 18-year-old preparing to vote for the first time, Abercrombie said many of his fellow students tuned out Tuesday night.

"I'd be surprised if any of them were watching this right now," he said. "No one really cares about the presidential election until they get older. For me to be here right now is kind of weird."

http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/...all/index.html <BR>

bbk,

The top 1% don't deserve a tax break? I will definitely be in this category and probably won't ever know one, but I don't understand why they are responsible to pay my bills. Who do you think is responsible for creating, building and expanding jobs? Therefor creating JOBS, where we simpletons can WORK and EARN our OWN money.

I agree that NO ONE should pay more than 33% of their income to the Government. I know damn well that I don't like it. But why is the money earned from that 1% ideas, companies, money less deserved than my measely peanuts?

Wolf...

I agree, there will be those that waste that money... but their are many that would enjoy the opportunity to have the chance to make their own decision.

Trust is a key factor here.

I think it is a difference in opinion, and is probably why we have elections.

BTW, I think it is great that we can all have a public forum where we can all debate the opinions and issues at hand. Nothing personal directed at any one. These are my opinions, if offended please recognize that I speak from the heart and respect others who do as well in speaking their opinions.

I appreciate the feedback given, hope the sentiment is the same from others.

It's been fun guys. I don't think any of us have changed our positions, but I've enjoyed it.

So what were the funniest remarks you heard? (I'm not talking ridicule, just plain funny remarks...)<P>

Many (not all) of those 1%ers at one point in their life were not 1%ers, they were a lot like the majority of Americans. They took chances and made sacrifices to earn their standing.

I just think that they do not bear an undue responsibility for each of our futures. The great thing about this country is that the opportunity exists to become a 1%er. They took the risks, they deserve the rewards. It would be interested to see a list of the 1%ers and some of the altruistic things they do for others. You will never hear about this in the media though.<P>

Why the hell does that 1% need all that money for? Can't they be happy living on a lot less? Would'nt it be better if we had a bell curve type tax system instead of a "flat tax"? I don't buy that horse **** about the 1% "earning" it. Waitresses and teachers work a hell of a lot harder than most of that 1%. The rich of this country should feel an obligation to the rest of society imho. TO do other wise is to be a selfish bastard. No wonder most of them are republicans :P

If you fear change, become a republican.
If you embrace change as opportunity, become a democrat or independent.

btw, Al Gore led the charge in congress to make the internet commercially available, thus putting the .com into the internet, which is the internet that most of us use. So, in a way, Al Gore helped invent the internet. Deal with it.

------------------
Don't think....feel.

CNN/USA TODAY/GALLUP POLL
October 3
Did the Debate Make You Switch Your Vote?

Yes 3%

No 96

Sampling error: +/-4% pts

I guess that is the bottom line.


I found this quote funny:

"I think Bush did himself a lot of good ... he came across as less intelligent but more sincere," said Morgan Marrietta, 30, a graduate student. But he said he was still undecided.

http://www.ChiefsPlanet.com/ubb/smile.gif

[This message has been edited by DaWolf (edited 10-04-2000).]

Wolf.

Thanks for the proof behind your argument. You are right, many young voters are apathetic when it comes to voting. They are too young, but not all feel this way. That is my point. I consider young to be the first 10-15 years of voting age.

My point is that I believe there will be a larger turnout than is usual for this age group.

I do not have a news source for this, I am only using my personal experiences and perceptions from my small corner of the world. I could be wrong. We will see.<P>

And if you believe in redistributing income because someone has it and you don't... vote democrat...

I made $100,000 in my own business last year. I paid 48% in taxes. Then I paid my own health insurance. Then I paid my property taxes, unemployment, disability, etc. Then I make my house payment (all 1700 square feet of it). Yeah, what do I need that extra money for right? After all, it's not like my kids could use it for college, or I might want to save it for retirement...

Nope, take it. I'm just a greedy bastard capitalist who simply doesn't understand that I have no right to expect to keep my money...<BR>

I feel liberals are bad for a country. I don't like the fact that democrats feel they know what is best for me. The people should have more responsiblity and power to lead their own lives and less restrictions from the government.

------------------
bk

[This message has been edited by bkkcoh (edited 10-04-2000).]

Oregon,
I hope I am wrong. We need to get everyone out there and get the democratic process working. I hate having a minority of eligible voters showing up to determine the country's future. We need people to show up and vote...

If you fear change, become a republican - LMFAO

That is the funniest thing I've read in a long time. Democrats are the defenders of the status quo, fighting for more and more money to spend on government programs. If 'change' means more government spending, then, yeah, Im afraid of change. Im afraid I cant afford it.

Gore did no more to 'help' invent the Internet than anyone on this BB. His legistlation did NOT make the Internet commercially available. Deal with that.

Lastly, Some people strive to make money. Their ambition is to become wealthy. Does this make them a bad person? Heavens no. There is no nobility in being poor.

I feel it works both ways. Have less government and people ***** that the system isn't working for them. Have too much government and people ***** that there are too many restrictions. Extremes in either direction is bad. We need to have a nice medium...

KCAtMU...

So let me get this straight.. the 1%ers should write you and me a check because they have been successful...

And what about the 15%ers, and the 30%ers.

That seems to me to just be wrong. My opinion, you earn it you deserve it. That is what makes this system work. It motivates those without to try harder to improve. If you are not personally happy with your share you can act on it. And in is this country you have the opportunity to be successful.

Is it fair that the 1%ers have the largest portion of the pie? I am not sure, but should they bear an unfair burden in the programs and reforms of the goverment?

I don't think so. I believe that it should be fair, that is all. I am not angry that there is a 1% that is very wealthy. I may be jealous, but I am not angry.

<BR>

Reply to post#108,

My employer is a 1%er. He can either pay around 46% federal tax or impove and expand his business, hiring more tax paying employees, paying contractors to expand, give more money to his current employees to spend as they see fit(paying sales tax btw). But maybe the goverment can use that money more wisely.

Or he could be cheap about it and keep the extra money for his own personal wealth instead of making improvements or new hires or raises, like my current employer would probably do. Who knows? http://www.ChiefsPlanet.com/ubb/wink.gif

RE: Post 108

Are you serious? Let the 1%ers have their money! Why should they get hacked because they have done well?

Kind of a nasty sign if you ask me.

"Do well in this country, and get F***** by uncle sam."

wolf,

The owner might not put it back into the company, but I bet he would spend it on vacations, entertainment or something else that would in turn create more jobs or work needed.




------------------
bk

Wolf...

I agree there has to be a middle ground. Our system is designed to work that way. The presidential election is more of a statement of the direction the country wants to head. It does not change the policies. It only ebbs the tide in one direction- it really is where the veto power lies.

I look at it like this. If I am a Republican, we have just lost two games in a row, and we need to get a win. If I am a Democrat, we have just won two in a row and want to keep the smowball going. The next game is coming up. And during and given election anything can happen.... and we are all the fans, with a little tiny bit of influence on the whole thing. But the game is really won during the week.

It is a team effort. --- agree with you.

Some like the Chiefs, some like the Broncos and some even like the Naders. http://www.ChiefsPlanet.com/ubb/rolleyes.gif


[This message has been edited by Oregon Chief Fan (edited 10-04-2000).]

DaWolf,
Is that what he meant by putting it in a lockbox?

Good point BK.

So many times we overlook the bigger picture. Even the greedy, evil 1%ers is sometimes forced to give in and take a vacation and give up that wealth to us lowly 99%ers. http://www.ChiefsPlanet.com/ubb/wink.gif

Are there going to be jobs are going to be created by the pan-handler on the street or the 1%??

------------------
bk

In regards to my post about my employer keeping all the money, just having some fun with my bastard of a CEO. http://www.ChiefsPlanet.com/ubb/wink.gif

Perhaps if Carl and Lamar got tax breaks they could go spend some money and get a stud RB?

Oregon,
Agree. LOL, your post for some reason reminded me of the NFL Films thing I was watching the other day about the old NFL where for one year the Eagles and the Steelers had to combine to form the Steagles. They hated each other but managed to work together and go 6-5-1... http://www.ChiefsPlanet.com/ubb/smile.gif<BR>

I wish soooo much I could find this story. I will and post it next week if i can.

The Ant and The Grasshopper, In Liberal America(paraphrased version)

The ant works all day, every day for several years while the grasshopper stays home, skips school and plays. The ant creates a comfortable modest home with a large supply of food things for his family to eat. He has even stockpiled so that in case of a drought, his family will be ok. In an election year, Bill, HIllary and AL see the mistreatment of the poor starving grasshopper who is living in less than lavish conditions, and (gulp) might not have enough Oreos to eat this winter. They call a news conference to point out the unfairness and have a news crew film the lavish lifestyle of the "Oppressive" Ant, followed up by images of dirty grasshoppers chewing on crumbs. Al has Jesse Jackson hold a rally where Kermit the frog sings "its not easy being green" for a captivated audience of the oppressed green person.

In response to the unfairness and disparity in lifestyles, Bill calls for the Taxation of all persons Ant to allow the Redistribution of wealth.

The Ants food stores are taken away, his house is given to the grasshoppers and the Ant starts over.

The following year, the Grasshopper hasn't maintained the home, has eaten the food, is hungary again, and has his hand out for the next ration.

Meanwhile the ant is hauling nuts for the sqirrel to try to earn some nuts to feed his own children.


I really wish I could find the original...but this is a CLASSIC liberal View.....and I still work for the squirrel...must be near a ballpark..i get peanuts.

[This message has been edited by Iowanian (edited 10-04-2000).]

Wolf - The thing is that if they do go play slots and the such then the Casino will be able to raise people's pay, hire more people and have to pay more to repair men. Then those poeple have more money to go out and spend on other things and... So really it is not a bad thing and seems to make more sense then the gov't spending it on something more useless.

I do wonder why gore didn't say that he was going to keep the surpluss in a lockbox and only spend it on paying down the national debt, well OK, not really, I'm sure they will have another way to spend it.

LOL. Funny story. However, I don't know how accurate it is. Remember, during the past 8 years unemployment has decreased bigtime, average salaries have risen, there is apparently less dependence on welfare, the economy has been strong, etc. Now I know both sides want to take credit for this economic success, but it didn't happen under previous administrations. And they were saying on the radio last night that Regan actually increased goverment a hell of a lot more. Everything is debatable, I suppose...

The Original Version...

The ant busts his butt in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter. The grasshopper thinks he's a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away. Come winter the ant is warm and well fed. The grasshopper has no food or shelter so he dies out in the cold.

thats the way it SHOULD BE JC....

you reap what you sew..

JC-Johnny:

Here is a link to a version of that story:
http://www.teleport.com/~brentf/greenism.html



------------------
bk

The New Liberal Version...

It starts out the same but when winter comes the shivering grasshopper calls a press conference and demands to know why the ant should be allowed to be warm and well fed while others are cold and starving. CBS, NBC, and ABC show up and show pictures of the shivering grasshopper next to film of the ant in his comfortable home with a table filled with food.

America is stunned by the sharp contrast. How can it be, in a country of such wealth that this poor grasshopper is allowed to suffer so? Then a representative of the NAAGB (The National Association of Green Bugs) shows up on Night Line and charges the ant with "Green Bias" and makes the case that the grasshopper is the victim of 30 million years of greenism. Kermit the frog appears on Oprah with the grasshopper and everybody cries when he sings "It's Not Easy Being Green."

Bill and Hillary Clinton make a special guest appearance on the CBS evening news and tell a concerned Dan Rather That they will do everything they can for the grasshopper who has been denied the prosperity he deserves by those who benefited unfairly during the summer, or as Bill refers to it, the "Temperatures Of The 80's".

Finally the EEOC drafts the "Economic Equity and Anti-Greenism Act" RECTRO-ACTIVE to the beginning of the summer. The ant is fined for failing to hire a proportionate number of green bugs and having nothing left to pay his Retro-Active taxes, his home is confiscated by the government.

The story ends as we see the grasshopper finishing up the last bits of the ant's food while the government house he's in....which just happens to be the ant's old house.... crumbles around him since he doesn't know how to maintain it. The ant has disappeared in the snow. And on the TV; which the grasshopper bought by selling most of the ant's food, Bill Clinton is standing before a wildly applauding group of Democrats announcing that a new era of "Fairness" has dawned in America.

Part Two...

After reading all the conservative propaganda, and listening to the Ant, the Grasshopper started to feel guilty, and he resolved to be a Better Grasshopper in future. So he got together with all his Grasshopper friends and family (who were all as shockingly irresponsible as he had been) and they all decided to go out and get jobs. The hard-working Ant was ever so pleased to hear that his message had finally gotten through.

Everything went well for a while: the Ant and the Grasshopper worked side by side, discussing conservative economics as they laboured. But one day, the foreman came by to talk to the Ant. "I'm sorry, Mr. Ant," he said, trying to avoid eye contact. "There's so much cheap Grasshopper labour on the market these days that I can't afford to keep you working for me. I'm going to have to let you go."

The Ant was furious. Every day, he would sit at home, writing angry letters to his congress-ant about how they should do something about all those awful Grasshoppers coming and stealing jobs from the Ants. He filled his days with so much hate that one day, he got sick, and his doctor told him that he had cancer.

Poor Ant! Still, at least he could go to the hospital and get better. But when he looked at his health insurance policy, he found that it had expired when he had left his job! The only way to get medical treatment was to dig into his retirement savings, and there wasn't enough money to pay for it all.

Well, this story turned out well for the Ant, as it happened. He had been born in Grasshopperland, which had a Liberal government that provided health care for everyone, and so he went to stay with his old family for a while. Although strictly speaking it was against his principles, he accepted their Liberal hospital treatment, and a year later, he was cured. And from that day to this, Gentle Reader, the Ant never complained about how unfair the Liberals were.

This article pretty much sums it up for me on why I won't vote Democrat any time soon. Too many "Political Prostitutes" as refered to in this article. It also states that minorities are one group that benefits from these policies. I am minority so I am going against the norm. I believe everything achieved in this country should be done through hard work, not entitlements. I do believe that some entitlements are necessary but I don't want to see the system overloaded with them through bigger and bigger government and more taxes. We are being taxed to death. The article does a good job on who really benefits from that. Reminds me too much of Gore's policies.
http://www.etherzone.com/mome050199.html

Dan



[This message has been edited by The_Grand_Illusion (edited 10-04-2000).]

John,

that was exactly the story I was looking for. thanks.

Is this what it all boils down to? The rich vs the poor?

Some of us work hard and we're poor
Some of us work hard and we're middle class
Some of us work hard and we're rich
Some of us never work and are rich'
Some of us never work and are poor
If you don't work you cannot ever be middle class

Is it a crime to succeed in America? Is it a crime being poor? Does the gov't really have a "right" to redistribute wealth?<P>

my whole point is this.

The government of ANY country could confiscate all of the money and all of the property within ins boundaries, and REDISTRIBUTE IT EVENLY to all presons living in that country.

ALL being equal in the beginning, In a short matter of time, we would be right back where we are. Some people are more intelligent and thrifty. They would invest, save and wisely use their money. Others would stay home, drink expensive beer, buy and smoke crack, gamble or invest unwisely.

The economy would REdistribute itself based on knowledge, ingenuity, luck, and skill.....

Economic classes will always exist. I come from the bottom portion of the financial ladder, and the fact that my fathers pride refused to allow us to mooch off of the "haves" and work that much harder to get what we DID have...Its a matter of pride, hard work, and tenacity.

Rich vs. poor...

The "have's" and the "have-not's"...

Get used to it people...it's called Capitalism, and it's the perfect, man-made, Darwinian social order. Capitalism moves in and of itself, without government. The role of money IS life and death. Government intervention is akin to man cutting down the rain forests - the more you meddle, the worse it degrades the system.

The government can and WILL seize and redistribute all property. The Bolsheviks did it in 1917. They said they would give it all to the people. Instead, they used it to enforce a totalitarian social order where the 1% STILL controlled everything.

Face it, since the beginning of time, no one has EVER been equal, and, until the end of time, no one will EVER be equal. Man cannot escape natural selection and nature is even devious enough to prove itself in our greatest creation - capitalism.

------------------
Parker
ChiefsPlanet Administrator
Jimmy Raye for President...anything to get him out of Kansas City
[i]More Moreau</I>

Who's the grasshopper? Is that the guy from that old Kung Fu series?

------------------
It looks I picked the wrong week to quit sniffing glue!

A bell curve tax plan. Would that not mean that the middle class would pay more and the poor and the rich pay none.
One of my favorite writers had this to say about the two parties. And I paraphrase.
The difference between democrats and republicans is
Democrats lie and cheat for fun.
Republicans lie and cheat for profit.
I would rather support the group that recives a profit from thier effort.

One more point Albert said he was going to eliminate the national debt, while at the same time keep the extra cash from medicare and ss in a lockbox.
Now as I understand it this means the money is put into T-bills the goverment pays about 2% interest on this money.
The 2% on this dept comes from the people (were paying interest to ourselfs)and creates deficit spending.
Talk about your fuzzy math.

I say make the people that have benefitted most from living in this country pay for it. IMO they SHOULD pay a higher percentage than people of lower classes. Sure, some of them may have worked hard to get where they're at (at least the ones that didn't inherit their money or get rich overnight), but once they become wealthy, they're on Easy St.

Let them pay the govt. for maintaining a country that has allowed them to lead such a pampered lifestyle.

I agree with what some of you have said: We are not and never will be equal. Why should people that are "less than equal" be expected to contribute an equal amount in taxes? They don't, and shouldn't.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Helvetica, verdana, ariel">quote:</font><HR>Man cannot escape natural selection and nature is even devious enough to prove itself in our greatest creation - capitalism.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And I thought the wheel was a big deal, or calculus, or a symphony. Sheesh!

Make no mistake; money rules this country. Unfortunately, some people have mistaken this fact for virtue and think that anything that makes money is good. The thing is, the people who deserve the money the most usually don't get it. What does a fashion model do in the course of one hour that justifies paying him/her more money for that one hour than a police officer makes in a whole year? The next time you're complaining about Dennis Miller being on MNF or the fact that kids don't know right from wrong, don't blame the democrats, blame the capitalists.

Sometimes winning isn't everything and having the most money doesn't make you biologically superior.

It is my personal opinion that it is the government's obligation to see to it that America's senior citizens are well taken care of. People that have worked & paid taxes for 40-50 years AND spawned a new generation of taxpayers deserve to know they'll be able to retire at a decent age WITHOUT having to depend on Wall St. or some $500.00/mo. check...no matter what the cost. They shouldn't have to live with relatives or eat government cheese because they couldn't play the stock market when they were younger.

How about a little "customer appreciation" from the govt?

Clint: Have no problem with that, only problem I dont see that in the constitution. Why empower a govt to take care of you?

clint,

I haven't been trying to infer that people with money are "better", obviously due to the fact that I don't happen to be one of them. Another fact I have learned is that MONEY itself doesn't equate happiness...I had a friend in college whose parents won not 1, but 2!!!! state lotteries....big money, but my pal still killed himself 5 years later.

I'm not saying that the rich shouldn't be taxed. My postition is that I!!! want a tax break,and when things are going well, they should get a break too.....the same %of taxes on $30k isn't going to be the same $ as $150k at the same 30%.

I think the tax break should be a sliding scale...Everyone should get a break that equally relieves economic stresses...i know I sure wish there were more breaks for student loans...


Disco,

I aggree that the pay scale per job isn't always logical...but a model is gifted genetically in a way that has market value...I don't think professional athletes are worth the money they make....If they worked for reasonable salaries, maybe the owners would charge lower ticket prices and I could afford to go to more games http://www.ChiefsPlanet.com/ubb/smile.gif

Clint, I agree whole heartedly with your last post.

BUT as a younger American, I'd like to have a little more leverage in determining MY retirement. I do work, save, and put money into a retirement account, but would like the abuility as an educated, responsible person to try and gain more than 2% on my money....for those that are less intelligent, thrifty, etc...let them have a choice for the goverments existing plan.

Iowanian,


Do you currently invest your money?

Not to get off the subject of capitalism but...

I came away from that debate and thought about which guy could carry off a summit meeting with the leader of a rival power. George W. did not pass the test.

canniabal,

I AM definitely no guru at investments. I invest in several ways. I have some money in a IRA split between 4 funds, some agressive, some small cap and steady. I have some cattle that are all payed for, and in a way are an investment. I also have a retirement fund through work that matches more than i put in, up to 10%, which is what I do..

I don't mess with the stock market much...i've not had enough extra to toy with after student loans, truck payment, house, yada yada yada(don't like singing to the chior).


KCjones,

Watch dubya in a one on one interview, like Larry King...He really does ALOT better under a different format.

I don't think he's perfect, but better than al bore


[This message has been edited by Iowanian (edited 10-04-2000).]

Jones - I was trying to figure out why people were complaining that Bush had to think about what he was going to say, while Gore just always went off on his tangent. I guess in a discussions with world leaders I want the guy who is going to think about what he is going to say and not come off in a condescending manner.

Iowanian -

re: The model - as they say, "Beauty lies in the hands of the beer holder." http://www.ChiefsPlanet.com/ubb/smile.gif

re: Professional athletes - Which candidate is for lower ticket prices? Hmmm....I may actually find a reason to vote for one of these guys yet! http://www.ChiefsPlanet.com/ubb/wink.gif<BR>

Disco,

Who said anything about virtue? That, again, is wishful thinking - a man-made idea that defies the "natural order" of things...

The idea that having money doesn't make you genetically superior is WRONG. It can be scientifically proven, over and over and over, that rich people beget rich people and poor people beget poor people. Poverty or wealth, either one, is inherited. Simply put, those with money survive because they can buy things. Those without money will not, because they can't buy things.

It is not as pronounced today, because we still have cash money. But 75 years ago, we had GOLD. Now we have paper. 10 years from now, all we will have is plastic, and they don't give credit to just anybody. If you thought the difference between affluent and impoverished is striking now, just wait.

Don't get me wrong, I don't want to agree with that, but unfortunately, it's a cruel world and it's a simple fact. It doesn't matter whether it's popular, compassionate, sad, or hateful. It just is, and there's not a damn thing any of us can do about it.

Everyone, at some time or another gravitates towards political conservatism. Liberalism rises in eras of properity and good-feeling. However, as time goes on, and people realize what it takes to survive, they begin to protect what is theirs and keep others from having it.

Make no mistake about it, the fundamental element of all life is carbon. The fundamental element of all American life is money.

------------------
Parker
ChiefsPlanet Administrator
Jimmy Raye for President...anything to get him out of Kansas City
[i]More Moreau</I>

By the way, Disco, in case you haven't noticed, my specialty in my degree (History/German/Philosophy) was 19th Century Industrial Nihilism. My favorite author, by far, is Friederich Nietzche. http://www.ChiefsPlanet.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

------------------
Parker
ChiefsPlanet Administrator
Jimmy Raye for President...anything to get him out of Kansas City
[i]More Moreau</I>

htms,

I do have one difference with what you said in your last post...

Bill Gates did not come from a wealthy family..He and a few ingenuitive friends invented something in a garage that has changed worldwide business.

Survival with natural selection. If money weren't an issue, and raw survival were...I'll take my chances competing with a millionaire for food over a coutry boy any day....and twice on sunday...but thats just that Barbarian in me http://www.ChiefsPlanet.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

Mr., Mr. Jones....

I came away with the exact opposite feeling about who I would have representing our country in foreign affairs. I want the candidate who is not pouting, huffing , and puffing. Bush was much more composed in a simple debate than Al Gore.

Gore was spouting rhetoric only. He was not focused in the question at hand. I imagine most world leaders do not take well to the spoiled child routine that Gore had.

My take on it.

Re post #154:

This is the reason why our society is failing.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Helvetica, verdana, ariel">quote:</font><HR>The idea that having money doesn't make you genetically superior is WRONG. It can be scientifically proven, over and over and over, that rich people beget rich people and poor people beget poor people. Poverty or wealth, either one, is inherited. Simply put, those with money survive because they can buy things. Those without money will not, because they can't buy things.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm sorry, no offense aimed at you personally Hits, but this is totally absurd. So Bill Gates's parents were billionaires? So it's not possible to rise from poverty to wealth or go from wealth to poverty?

Now taking your arguement to it's end, it follows that after even thousands of years of human existance, we should all be rich by now. For obviously, and according to you this has been SCIENTIFICALLY proven, all of the poor should have died off years or even centuries ago because they could not afford it.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Helvetica, verdana, ariel">quote:</font><HR>Simply put, those with money survive because they can buy things. Those without money will not, because they can't buy things.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm sorry, but people have been around A LOT longer than capitalism, and I tend to be optimistic in thinking that they will be around a long time after it.

[This message has been edited by DiscoJones (edited 10-04-2000).]

Oregon,
I disagree. BOTH were spouting rhetoric. All Bush ever said was "fuzzy math" and "I want to give to all people" and "they didn't get the job done" and "we need a leader in washington" and that sort of stuff. I heard very few specifics from GW. Even the dude who was covering his campaign said after the debate that basically what he did was rehash everything he said in his stump speeches, and that was why his answers were so short. Basically what I got from Bush was "don't believe him ,he's trying to confuse you, trust me, but hey I can't really tell you why to trust me, just don't trust him."