Chew on this, Left wing Whackos.

Mike Rosen

January 19, 2007
With the Democrats back in power in Congress and with the 2008 election
campaign already upon us, you'll be hearing much more about "income
inequality." This is a major issue for "progressives" (when you hear
that word, think "socialists") like Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi.
Populism is back in fashion.

By populism, I mean the exploitation of the uninformed, angry impulses
and unfiltered passions of the masses. That anger and resentment has
historically been directed at the usual villains and cardboard
stereotypes: bankers, insurance companies, "big pharma" (that means
drug companies), agri-business, "the military-industrial complex," free
trade, free markets and, of course, "the rich." This mentality feeds on
conspiracy theories and simplistic fantasies about the way the world
works. It seeks to impale the minority of "haves" on the pitchforks of
the more numerous "have nots." When you do the political calculus, it
can seem like a seductive winning formula for many politicians.

Complaints of income inequality are nothing new. Will Durant traces its
history to ancient Rome. He observes that: "The concentration of wealth
is a natural and inevitable result of the concentration of abilities in
a minority of men and regularly recurs in history . . . Despotism may
for a time retard the concentration; democracy, allowing the most
liberty, accelerates it."

Along the way, societies have dealt with income disparities, as Durant
puts it, through "legislation redistributing wealth or by revolution
distributing poverty." Alexis de Tocqueville, writing in Democracy in
America in the 1830s, cautioned that democracy could be taken too far,
noting that "there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for
equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to
their own level, and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to
inequality in freedom."

The French Revolution consumed itself on populist excesses and
atrocities on persons and property in the name of "egalitarianism." The
difference between a prosperous free society like ours and
impoverished, collectivist despotisms is the difference between our
notion of equality of opportunity and the self-destructive egalitarian
notion of equality of outcome.

To be sure, there are some very rich people in America who earn and
possess hundreds or thousands of times what poorer people earn or
possess. But the poor in this country are only relatively poor. We have
no abject poverty. On the contrary, America's "poor" have cars, TVs,
appliances, computers, $200 basketball shoes and own their own homes.
Their lifestyle would be the envy of most of the world's population.

As long as there's relative wealth, there will always be relative
poverty. The only alternative is an impossible one: absolute income and
wealth equality. In a market economy like ours, the state of the
economy will be never be good enough for some and never bad enough for
others. In a dynamic economy, there will always be relative winners and
losers. Some industries will be ascendant and others will be in
decline. For the vast majority of Americans, today's income disparities
are mostly related to differing levels of education and skills of
marketable value.

Be wary of misleading economic statistics glibly tossed around by
populist politicians. A flood of low-skilled immigrants, many illegal,
has had a downward influence on average wages. Increases in nonwage
compensation - like employer-provided health insurance or deferred
compensation in the form of generous defined-benefit pension plans for
government employees - are frequently ignored in the wage data. Then
there's the discrepancy between reported incomes and consumption, with
consumption data - a much better measure of living standards - showing
far less inequality.

Politicians and the U.S. government have long been in the business of
redistributing income through progressive taxation (the top 2 percent
of Americans pay two-thirds of all income taxes; the bottom 50 percent
pay only 3 percent) on the one hand, and transfer payments to the poor
and middle class on the other. Remarkably, the official
income-distribution figures don't subtract income taxes paid by
heavily-burdened net taxpayers. Compounding the distortion, cash
transfers and the cornucopia of government services and subsidies
obtained by net tax receivers are also ignored. Even though we spend
hundreds of billions on this, it's like those benefits don't exist.

Individual incomes are determined objectively in the marketplace. When
politicians or labor unions don't like the results, they meddle in
people's lives and businesses in pursuit of power while invoking the
name of "social justice," today's name for egalitarianism. Excessive
concentration of income and wealth can destroy a society politically.
We're nowhere near that point. Excessive redistribution of income and
wealth - without regard for talent and productivity - can destroy a
society economically. That's the more tangible danger.

Mike Rosen's radio show airs daily from 9 a.m. to noon on 850 KOA. He
can be reached by e-mail at .

About Mike Rosen
Mike Rosen hosts Denver's most popular local radio talk show on 850
KOA. He holds an MBA degree from the University of Denver, was a
corporate finance executive at Samsonite and Beatrice Foods, served as
Special Assistant for Financial Management to the Assistant Secretary
of the Navy at the Pentagon and is a veteran of the U.S. Army. He's
traveled extensively in Europe, the Far East, Latin America, southern
Africa and the former Soviet Union. Mike grew up in New York and has
lived in Colorado for over 30 years.

"PJ O'Donovan" wrote in message
ps.com...
Mike Rosen

January 19, 2007
With the Democrats back in power in Congress and with the 2008 election
campaign already upon us, you'll be hearing much more about "income
inequality." This is a major issue for "progressives" (when you hear
that word, think "socialists") like Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi.
Populism is back in fashion.

By populism, I mean the exploitation of the uninformed, angry impulses
and unfiltered passions of the masses. That anger and resentment has
historically been directed at the usual villains and cardboard
stereotypes: bankers, insurance companies, "big pharma" (that means
drug companies), agri-business, "the military-industrial complex," free
trade, free markets and, of course, "the rich." This mentality feeds on
conspiracy theories and simplistic fantasies about the way the world
works. It seeks to impale the minority of "haves" on the pitchforks of
the more numerous "have nots." When you do the political calculus, it
can seem like a seductive winning formula for many politicians.

Complaints of income inequality are nothing new. Will Durant traces its
history to ancient Rome. He observes that: "The concentration of wealth
is a natural and inevitable result of the concentration of abilities in
a minority of men and regularly recurs in history . . . Despotism may
for a time retard the concentration; democracy, allowing the most
liberty, accelerates it."

Along the way, societies have dealt with income disparities, as Durant
puts it, through "legislation redistributing wealth or by revolution
distributing poverty." Alexis de Tocqueville, writing in Democracy in
America in the 1830s, cautioned that democracy could be taken too far,
noting that "there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for
equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to
their own level, and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to
inequality in freedom."

The French Revolution consumed itself on populist excesses and
atrocities on persons and property in the name of "egalitarianism." The
difference between a prosperous free society like ours and
impoverished, collectivist despotisms is the difference between our
notion of equality of opportunity and the self-destructive egalitarian
notion of equality of outcome.

To be sure, there are some very rich people in America who earn and
possess hundreds or thousands of times what poorer people earn or
possess. But the poor in this country are only relatively poor. We have
no abject poverty. On the contrary, America's "poor" have cars, TVs,
appliances, computers, $200 basketball shoes and own their own homes.
Their lifestyle would be the envy of most of the world's population.

As long as there's relative wealth, there will always be relative
poverty. The only alternative is an impossible one: absolute income and
wealth equality. In a market economy like ours, the state of the
economy will be never be good enough for some and never bad enough for
others. In a dynamic economy, there will always be relative winners and
losers. Some industries will be ascendant and others will be in
decline. For the vast majority of Americans, today's income disparities
are mostly related to differing levels of education and skills of
marketable value.

Be wary of misleading economic statistics glibly tossed around by
populist politicians. A flood of low-skilled immigrants, many illegal,
has had a downward influence on average wages. Increases in nonwage
compensation - like employer-provided health insurance or deferred
compensation in the form of generous defined-benefit pension plans for
government employees - are frequently ignored in the wage data. Then
there's the discrepancy between reported incomes and consumption, with
consumption data - a much better measure of living standards - showing
far less inequality.

Politicians and the U.S. government have long been in the business of
redistributing income through progressive taxation (the top 2 percent
of Americans pay two-thirds of all income taxes; the bottom 50 percent
pay only 3 percent) on the one hand, and transfer payments to the poor
and middle class on the other. Remarkably, the official
income-distribution figures don't subtract income taxes paid by
heavily-burdened net taxpayers. Compounding the distortion, cash
transfers and the cornucopia of government services and subsidies
obtained by net tax receivers are also ignored. Even though we spend
hundreds of billions on this, it's like those benefits don't exist.

Individual incomes are determined objectively in the marketplace. When
politicians or labor unions don't like the results, they meddle in
people's lives and businesses in pursuit of power while invoking the
name of "social justice," today's name for egalitarianism. Excessive
concentration of income and wealth can destroy a society politically.
We're nowhere near that point. Excessive redistribution of income and
wealth - without regard for talent and productivity - can destroy a
society economically. That's the more tangible danger.

Mike Rosen's radio show airs daily from 9 a.m. to noon on 850 KOA. He
can be reached by e-mail at .

About Mike Rosen
Mike Rosen hosts Denver's most popular local radio talk show on 850
KOA. He holds an MBA degree from the University of Denver, was a
corporate finance executive at Samsonite and Beatrice Foods, served as
Special Assistant for Financial Management to the Assistant Secretary
of the Navy at the Pentagon and is a veteran of the U.S. Army. He's
traveled extensively in Europe, the Far East, Latin America, southern
Africa and the former Soviet Union. Mike grew up in New York and has
lived in Colorado for over 30 years.

# There are always the enterprising and the lethargic, and folk tend to be
rewarded accordingly. But "free enterprise" should not be equated with
capitalism, as such.
Capitalism is an elitist system, by very definition - the "private"
ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange - is
automatically elitist, insofar as "public" is ruled out.
The USA and its capitalist system can do all types of top-to-bottom
adjustment attempts to rectify the imbalance inherent in the system, but the
basic problem remains - they won't change the system. This is compounded by
entrenched Plutocracy - only the wealthy, or those sponsored by the wealthy,
can be elected to high office in the USA.
The Communist solution is also a top-to-bottom remedy; this time via the
State and the Party. The Theocratic solution, eg, in Iran, is similar.
Both have a dogmatic and ideological (or theological) orthodoxy, which is
imposed on the populace. A similar thing occurs in the USA, except that it
is implied - we talk of THE Economy, implying that no other alternative is
worth considering. The Fall of the Berlin Wall, means Western Utopia has
arrived....(yeah?)
Democracy is not ideal, just that, as Winston Churchill put it - the
alternatives are so much worse.
"Industrial Democracy" is the solution to the Class War, which lingers on;
not defunct, but merely ignored.
Why elections in most democratic nations today are virtual non-events is
because we live in Plutocracies, and the more things change, the more they
remain the same.
Such democracy is a relic of feudal times, it is a geographic system,
appropriate to those times, but not today.
Only democracy in the workplace will give immediacy and relevance to the
individual. CEOs and Directors would be elected by the workers (all staff,
plus Management), and external shareholders would be abolished.
With such freedom also comes responsibility, and the whole staff of an
enterprise would have a vested interest in the prosperity of that
enterprise. And with this form of socialism would come an emphasis on
co-operation, rather than competition - between enterprises. Likewise, a
degree of rational planning for the economy overall, instead of too much
reliance on market forces (cartels. graft, corruption?).
The obsession with "growth", and productivity, would lessen, though
efficiency would still remain as desirable, and achievable.
There are many other aspects which can be considered, but certainly -
capitalism, alone, is not enough.

"Don H" wrote in message
...
"PJ O'Donovan" wrote in message
ps.com...
Mike Rosen

January 19, 2007
With the Democrats back in power in Congress and with the 2008 election
campaign already upon us, you'll be hearing much more about "income
inequality." This is a major issue for "progressives" (when you hear
that word, think "socialists") like Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi.
Populism is back in fashion.

By populism, I mean the exploitation of the uninformed, angry impulses
and unfiltered passions of the masses. That anger and resentment has
historically been directed at the usual villains and cardboard
stereotypes: bankers, insurance companies, "big pharma" (that means
drug companies), agri-business, "the military-industrial complex," free
trade, free markets and, of course, "the rich." This mentality feeds on
conspiracy theories and simplistic fantasies about the way the world
works. It seeks to impale the minority of "haves" on the pitchforks of
the more numerous "have nots." When you do the political calculus, it
can seem like a seductive winning formula for many politicians.

# There are always the enterprising and the lethargic, and folk tend to be
rewarded accordingly. But "free enterprise" should not be equated with
capitalism, as such.
Capitalism is an elitist system, by very definition - the "private"
ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange - is
automatically elitist, insofar as "public" is ruled out.

The public ruled out?
When was the capacity of the public to acquire shares in public companies
removed?
When were the public prevented from establishing and operating a business,
investing their money and creating jobs?

The USA and its capitalist system can do all types of top-to-bottom
adjustment attempts to rectify the imbalance inherent in the system, but
the
basic problem remains - they won't change the system. This is compounded
by
entrenched Plutocracy - only the wealthy, or those sponsored by the
wealthy,
can be elected to high office in the USA.
The Communist solution is also a top-to-bottom remedy; this time via the
State and the Party. The Theocratic solution, eg, in Iran, is similar.
Both have a dogmatic and ideological (or theological) orthodoxy, which is
imposed on the populace. A similar thing occurs in the USA, except that
it
is implied - we talk of THE Economy, implying that no other alternative is
worth considering.

Now you want to abolish "the economy".


The Fall of the Berlin Wall, means Western Utopia has
arrived....(yeah?)

WTF?

Democracy is not ideal, just that, as Winston Churchill put it - the
alternatives are so much worse.
"Industrial Democracy" is the solution to the Class War, which lingers
on;
not defunct, but merely ignored.
Why elections in most democratic nations today are virtual non-events is
because we live in Plutocracies, and the more things change, the more they
remain the same.
Such democracy is a relic of feudal times, it is a geographic system,
appropriate to those times, but not today.

If such is the case how could a train driver or a union boss have become
prime minister?

Only democracy in the workplace will give immediacy and relevance to the
individual. CEOs and Directors would be elected by the workers (all
staff,
plus Management), and external shareholders would be abolished.

So now you want the public to be excluded from owning shares.
One minute you're saying saying that "the public is ruled out" - then you
say the public SHOULD be ruled out by abolishing shareholders.

Who puts up the capital to establish the business and provide the necessary
working capital? The "workers"?


With such freedom

What freedom?
What you seem to want is the introduction of more restrictions.

also comes responsibility, and the whole staff of an
enterprise would have a vested interest in the prosperity of that
enterprise.

Do they put up the money?

And with this form of socialism would come an emphasis on
co-operation, rather than competition - between enterprises.

But aren't there strong (and appropriate) laws against "co-operation" /
cartels etc?
What is it about competition that you don't like? Competion fosters
efficiencies and productivity and keeps prices down.
A lack of it has the opposite effect.

Likewise, a
degree of rational planning for the economy overall, instead of too much
reliance on market forces (cartels. graft, corruption?).

But weren't you just advocating the removal of competition?


The obsession with "growth", and productivity, would lessen, though
efficiency would still remain as desirable, and achievable.

The opposite would be the case.


There are many other aspects which can be considered, but certainly -
capitalism, alone, is not enough.


You talk absolute nonsense.
Is there any place in the world where your utopian "system" has been tried
and works?

PJ O'Donovan wrote:

About Mike Rosen
Mike Rosen hosts Denver's most popular local radio talk show on 850
KOA. He holds an MBA degree from the University of Denver, was a
corporate finance executive at Samsonite and Beatrice Foods, served as
Special Assistant for Financial Management to the Assistant Secretary
of the Navy at the Pentagon and is a veteran of the U.S. Army. He's
traveled extensively in Europe, the Far East, Latin America, southern
Africa and the former Soviet Union. Mike grew up in New York and has
lived in Colorado for over 30 years.

This is more relevant:

Finkelstein (descendants of Tevel Finkelstein) and Rosen families
(descendants of Isaac Rosen)
http://www.jhcwc.org/archives.htm

If you understand the financial/banking conspiracy cartel monopoly
credit supply
criminal syndicate which is the U.S. Federal Reserve as run by the
Jewish Mafia;
then you will understand something of why this 'extended tribe of Jews'
have
managed to pull off the biggest heist in history; controlling the most
powerful
country in the world. And how J. W. Howard is the extended arm of U.S.
influence
and control in this country; the Iraq war and multiculturalism all part
of the Zionist
plan to change the fact of Australia forever. Which has been concluded
rather
successfully thus far; with the help of all aussie dopes and dupes;
playing the
violins at their own wakes. There is no conspiracy, there are only
human cattle
goyim to be herded, managed, manipulated and used. Divide and conquer,
fasgnadh,
and the rest of the hoi polloi. The war has been won, and Old
Australia has lost,
to criminal thieves with no conscionable empathic feelings towards dumb
cattle.
At least they don't eat pigs. Very much so indeed, since this is the
Chinese Year
of the Fire Pig!

PJ O'Donovan wrote:
Mike Rosen

January 19, 2007
With the Democrats back in power in Congress and with the 2008 election
campaign already upon us, you'll be hearing much more about "income
inequality." This is a major issue for "progressives" (when you hear
that word, think "socialists") like Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi.
Populism is back in fashion.

By populism, I mean the exploitation of the uninformed, angry impulses
and unfiltered passions of the masses. That anger and resentment has
historically been directed at the usual villains and cardboard
stereotypes: bankers, insurance companies, "big pharma" (that means
drug companies), agri-business, "the military-industrial complex," free
trade, free markets and, of course, "the rich." This mentality feeds on
conspiracy theories and simplistic fantasies about the way the world
works. It seeks to impale the minority of "haves" on the pitchforks of
the more numerous "have nots." When you do the political calculus, it
can seem like a seductive winning formula for many politicians.

Complaints of income inequality are nothing new. Will Durant traces its
history to ancient Rome. He observes that: "The concentration of wealth
is a natural and inevitable result of the concentration of abilities in
a minority of men and regularly recurs in history . . . Despotism may
for a time retard the concentration; democracy, allowing the most
liberty, accelerates it."

Along the way, societies have dealt with income disparities, as Durant
puts it, through "legislation redistributing wealth or by revolution
distributing poverty." Alexis de Tocqueville, writing in Democracy in
America in the 1830s, cautioned that democracy could be taken too far,
noting that "there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for
equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to
their own level, and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to
inequality in freedom."

The French Revolution consumed itself on populist excesses and
atrocities on persons and property in the name of "egalitarianism." The
difference between a prosperous free society like ours and
impoverished, collectivist despotisms is the difference between our
notion of equality of opportunity and the self-destructive egalitarian
notion of equality of outcome.

To be sure, there are some very rich people in America who earn and
possess hundreds or thousands of times what poorer people earn or
possess. But the poor in this country are only relatively poor. We have
no abject poverty. On the contrary, America's "poor" have cars, TVs,
appliances, computers, $200 basketball shoes and own their own homes.
Their lifestyle would be the envy of most of the world's population.

As long as there's relative wealth, there will always be relative
poverty. The only alternative is an impossible one: absolute income and
wealth equality. In a market economy like ours, the state of the
economy will be never be good enough for some and never bad enough for
others. In a dynamic economy, there will always be relative winners and
losers. Some industries will be ascendant and others will be in
decline. For the vast majority of Americans, today's income disparities
are mostly related to differing levels of education and skills of
marketable value.

Be wary of misleading economic statistics glibly tossed around by
populist politicians. A flood of low-skilled immigrants, many illegal,
has had a downward influence on average wages. Increases in nonwage
compensation - like employer-provided health insurance or deferred
compensation in the form of generous defined-benefit pension plans for
government employees - are frequently ignored in the wage data. Then
there's the discrepancy between reported incomes and consumption, with
consumption data - a much better measure of living standards - showing
far less inequality.

Politicians and the U.S. government have long been in the business of
redistributing income through progressive taxation (the top 2 percent
of Americans pay two-thirds of all income taxes; the bottom 50 percent
pay only 3 percent) on the one hand, and transfer payments to the poor
and middle class on the other. Remarkably, the official
income-distribution figures don't subtract income taxes paid by
heavily-burdened net taxpayers. Compounding the distortion, cash
transfers and the cornucopia of government services and subsidies
obtained by net tax receivers are also ignored. Even though we spend
hundreds of billions on this, it's like those benefits don't exist.

Choke on this, asshole: the top 10% have over 95% of what is called
disposable income. That means they pay taxes out of money not needed
for living expenses. Everyone else has to forego something or choose
between "good" and "not as good".




Individual incomes are determined objectively in the marketplace. When
politicians or labor unions don't like the results, they meddle in
people's lives and businesses in pursuit of power while invoking the
name of "social justice," today's name for egalitarianism. Excessive
concentration of income and wealth can destroy a society politically.
We're nowhere near that point. Excessive redistribution of income and
wealth - without regard for talent and productivity - can destroy a
society economically. That's the more tangible danger.

Mike Rosen's radio show airs daily from 9 a.m. to noon on 850 KOA. He
can be reached by e-mail at .

About Mike Rosen
Mike Rosen hosts Denver's most popular local radio talk show on 850
KOA. He holds an MBA degree from the University of Denver, was a
corporate finance executive at Samsonite and Beatrice Foods, served as
Special Assistant for Financial Management to the Assistant Secretary
of the Navy at the Pentagon and is a veteran of the U.S. Army. He's
traveled extensively in Europe, the Far East, Latin America, southern
Africa and the former Soviet Union. Mike grew up in New York and has
lived in Colorado for over 30 years.

wrote in message
ups.com...

PJ O'Donovan wrote:
Mike Rosen

January 19, 2007
With the Democrats back in power in Congress and with the 2008 election

snip

Choke on this, asshole: the top 10% have over 95% of what is called
disposable income. That means they pay taxes out of money not needed
for living expenses. Everyone else has to forego something or choose
between "good" and "not as good".

Peejay will not 'choke' on this or on any other fact that disagrees with
Rosen's ludicrous article. The reason for that is that he, peejay, is a
profound idiot as well as being a proven liar, fantasist and moral coward.
His own views are rarely expressed except via childlike insults 'Left Wing
Whackos' etc.

John Rennie wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...

PJ O'Donovan wrote:
Mike Rosen

January 19, 2007
With the Democrats back in power in Congress and with the 2008 election

snip

Choke on this, asshole: the top 10% have over 95% of what is called
disposable income. That means they pay taxes out of money not needed
for living expenses. Everyone else has to forego something or choose
between "good" and "not as good".

Peejay will not 'choke' on this or on any other fact that disagrees with
Rosen's ludicrous article. The reason for that is that he, peejay, is a
profound idiot as well as being a proven liar, fantasist and moral coward.
His own views are rarely expressed except via childlike insults 'Left Wing
Whackos' etc.

The sad thing is, Rosen used to be a good columnist. He's a local
Denver boy
(I read his stuff in the Post all the time on Sundays) and used to have
a fairly
good balance between right and left wing stuff. I don't know what
happened to
him.

Matt

BBC conducted a poll,and 3 out of 4 doesn't favor Bush and USA as having
done
the right thing for the world.

In the USA,the way Bush help the Iraqis into full fledge Democratic State by
spending so much to the tune of 400 Billion USD to date.Moreover,USA never
eat the good of their land,by seizing their Oil fields as spoils of War.

Why must Bush spend so much goodwill for the world?Why must he continue to
help strengthen security for Iraq?

Our world today saw prosperity,which efforts were directly due to the
excellent policies of Bush and his team.Do you expect The Sail to have reach
2000 p.s.f?
Our ST index hit all times high,so do Dow Jones.Nikkei is now hovering
around 17000 points.

USA was kept safe from Terrorisms since 9/11.Two nations with the worst
human rights' record were set free.Saddam was executed.The entire world work
hand in hand with USA in rebuilding Afghan and Iraq to prosperity.

Why should the people of this world appreciate USA?
Having done so much good deeds for the world,honor and increase goodwill
would be given to USA and Bush by the world.If everyone is going to bless
USA and appreciate her,where can the obnoxious nut and evil people ever to
rise its ugly head?It will be more difficult for Terrorists to operate.

The spate of violence in Iraq should be spurring help and support from the
world to continue help Bush whatever ways they could.How can our world leave
the important tasks of quelling violence to the Americans?

The burdens carried by Bush for the sake of peace and security of this world
will only be appreciated by good people.

Those who sees it differently must surely be cock-eyes.



"John Rennie" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ups.com...

PJ O'Donovan wrote:
Mike Rosen

January 19, 2007
With the Democrats back in power in Congress and with the 2008 election

snip

Choke on this, asshole: the top 10% have over 95% of what is called
disposable income. That means they pay taxes out of money not needed
for living expenses. Everyone else has to forego something or choose
between "good" and "not as good".

Peejay will not 'choke' on this or on any other fact that disagrees with
Rosen's ludicrous article. The reason for that is that he, peejay, is a
profound idiot as well as being a proven liar, fantasist and moral coward.
His own views are rarely expressed except via childlike insults 'Left Wing
Whackos' etc.

On Tue, 23 Jan 2007 22:02:36 +0800, "KRANKIE PEE" wrote:

USA was kept safe from Terrorisms since 9/11.

No, the terrorist Bush crime family poisoned some
people with anthrax, and the USA is at greater risk
because of the illegal invasion of Iraq, which has
also been damaged rather severely.

...Politicians and the U.S. government have long been in the business
of
redistributing income through progressive taxation (the top 2 percent
of Americans pay two-thirds of all income taxes; the bottom 50 percent
pay only 3 percent)...

PeeJay

Choke on this, asshole: the top 10% have over 95% of what is called
disposable income.

liberalhere


Not sure of the figures but they would have a disproprtionate share of
disposable income. You have, however, unkowingly advanced the logic for
a fairer broad based consumption tax as opposed to this quagmire of
taxing income.

Your beloved "apparatchiks" in this thing called government would never
consider it, however, since the income tax system is the goose that
lays the golden egg for them. It provides the "apparatchik" with a
"legal" mechanism to be bribed by the private sector.