Jeff Rigby wrote:
OK, lets restate some things. With the ease that WMD can be built by just
about anyone a concerted effort to promote the growth of "FREE" countries
with a large middle class and a free press seems to be a good idea. Sound
familiar? What we are doing in Iraq!


Difficult to say, so far. There seems to be a pretty good chance of Iraq
becoming at least partially theocratic, and there will be a large
influential population of America-haters there... expected when we've
killed so many of them and trashed so much of the country. Is that a
positive step?

There is also potential for Iraq to become more like Turkey, a
pro-Western secular state.

And what of Iran? The closest thing they have to a pro-Western secular
oriented middle class recently suffered a big political setback, and the
rulers seem determined to built nukes.


There are many people and institutions that are against this. Most notably
for this discussion are Islamic radicals, Osama being one of the notables.

Yep. So why haven't we caught him?


IF you look at history Islam, and to a lesser extent the Catholic church
have been promoters of top down societies.


Islam far less so than Catholicism... for one big difference, there is
no Muslim equivalent of the Pope. And let's not leave out the fact that
numerous Protestant churches have jumped into the
political/socio-econimic scramble to put themselves on top. Let's also
not forget that the Bush Administration has been notable for policies
that tend to shift income & influence away from the lower & middle class.

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
...
Jeff Rigby wrote:
OK, lets restate some things. With the ease that WMD can be built by
just about anyone a concerted effort to promote the growth of "FREE"
countries with a large middle class and a free press seems to be a good
idea. Sound familiar? What we are doing in Iraq!


Difficult to say, so far. There seems to be a pretty good chance of Iraq
becoming at least partially theocratic, and there will be a large
influential population of America-haters there... expected when we've
killed so many of them and trashed so much of the country. Is that a
positive step?

There is also potential for Iraq to become more like Turkey, a pro-Western
secular state.

And what of Iran? The closest thing they have to a pro-Western secular
oriented middle class recently suffered a big political setback, and the
rulers seem determined to built nukes.


There are many people and institutions that are against this. Most
notably for this discussion are Islamic radicals, Osama being one of the
notables.

Yep. So why haven't we caught him?


IF you look at history Islam, and to a lesser extent the Catholic church
have been promoters of top down societies.


To this point I 'm happy to note that you agree with the thrust of my
thoughts. Makes you seem more human (reasonable) grin

Islam far less so than Catholicism... for one big difference, there is no
Muslim equivalent of the Pope.

It's not how the religion is organized internally but it's teachings,
teaching prostration before God and the church, fear of God, subservience to
the church.

IF you look at all the rules that Islam has laid down for man you get the
impression they think man is an animal that can't control himself if he
"sees" a woman, or drinks alcohol. He can't even drive a car with a woman
in the front seat. What kind of society treats it's citizens that way, one
that believes the comman man can't rule himself.

And let's not leave out the fact that
numerous Protestant churches have jumped into the political/socio-econimic
scramble to put themselves on top. Let's also not forget that the Bush
Administration has been notable for policies that tend to shift income &
influence away from the lower & middle class.

DSK

Yes I've seen notes all over the place and tried to correct the lies in
these notes but haven't seen any policies implemented by Bush that aren't
good for the common man.

Jeff Rigby wrote:
Yes I've seen notes all over the place and tried to correct the lies in
these notes but haven't seen any policies implemented by Bush that aren't
good for the common man.

Specifically, do you mean economic policies? How about the tax cut which
benefitted the wealthiest 5% as much or more than all others combined?
How about slashing the budget for many programs, from education to
national parks, used by the "average citizen" but the wealthy have no
need of, without any compensating cut in taxes or fees or whatever?

ANd to get back closer to the original thread:

DSK wrote
...And what of Iran? The closest thing they have to a pro-Western secular
oriented middle class recently suffered a big political setback, and the
rulers seem determined to built nukes.

Do you think it will benefit "the common man" in the USA, or anywhere
else in the world, that the Bush Administration is basically sticking
it's head in the sand and saying 'Everything will turn out OK'? Maybe i
shouldn't complain too hard, at least they're pretending to do something
about Korea, after a few years.

DSK

On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 06:38:13 -0400, DSK wrote:

Jeff Rigby wrote:
Yes I've seen notes all over the place and tried to correct the lies in
these notes but haven't seen any policies implemented by Bush that aren't
good for the common man.

Specifically, do you mean economic policies? How about the tax cut which
benefitted the wealthiest 5% as much or more than all others combined?
How about slashing the budget for many programs, from education to
national parks, used by the "average citizen" but the wealthy have no
need of, without any compensating cut in taxes or fees or whatever?

ANd to get back closer to the original thread:

DSK wrote
...And what of Iran? The closest thing they have to a pro-Western secular
oriented middle class recently suffered a big political setback, and the
rulers seem determined to built nukes.

Do you think it will benefit "the common man" in the USA, or anywhere
else in the world, that the Bush Administration is basically sticking
it's head in the sand and saying 'Everything will turn out OK'? Maybe i
shouldn't complain too hard, at least they're pretending to do something
about Korea, after a few years.

DSK

What percent of total taxes are paid by the top 5%?
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

"PocoLoco" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 06:38:13 -0400, DSK wrote:

Jeff Rigby wrote:
Yes I've seen notes all over the place and tried to correct the lies in
these notes but haven't seen any policies implemented by Bush that
aren't
good for the common man.

Specifically, do you mean economic policies? How about the tax cut which
benefitted the wealthiest 5% as much or more than all others combined?
How about slashing the budget for many programs, from education to
national parks, used by the "average citizen" but the wealthy have no
need of, without any compensating cut in taxes or fees or whatever?

ANd to get back closer to the original thread:

DSK wrote
...And what of Iran? The closest thing they have to a pro-Western
secular
oriented middle class recently suffered a big political setback, and
the
rulers seem determined to built nukes.

Do you think it will benefit "the common man" in the USA, or anywhere
else in the world, that the Bush Administration is basically sticking
it's head in the sand and saying 'Everything will turn out OK'? Maybe i
shouldn't complain too hard, at least they're pretending to do something
about Korea, after a few years.

DSK

What percent of total taxes are paid by the top 5%?

How are you supposed to cut taxes on those that don't pay taxes????

--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 11:32:10 -0400, PocoLoco wrote:


What percent of total taxes are paid by the top 5%?

In 2000, 38.4%, but then, they also had 30.7% of the pre-tax income.

http://www.osjspm.org/101_taxes.htm

PocoLoco wrote:
What percent of total taxes are paid by the top 5%?

Does it matter?

What percent of the overall personal wealth of the coountry does that 5%
own? Is it more or less than the percent of taxes? What about the
percent of income?

Now, why shouldn't a person (or group of people) who have absurdly large
incomes pay absurdly large taxes? Maybe because they hand over bigger
campaign donations?

DSK

On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 12:56:49 -0400, DSK wrote:

PocoLoco wrote:
What percent of total taxes are paid by the top 5%?

Does it matter?

What percent of the overall personal wealth of the coountry does that 5%
own? Is it more or less than the percent of taxes? What about the
percent of income?

Now, why shouldn't a person (or group of people) who have absurdly large
incomes pay absurdly large taxes? Maybe because they hand over bigger
campaign donations?

DSK
What does ownership of assets have to do with income tax?

I pay property tax on real estate and property tax on automobiles. I pay tax on
interest earned, but not on the principal. Is it your contention that I should?

Those who have absurd incomes should pay absurd taxes, but at the same rate as
everyone else.
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

PocoLoco wrote:
Those who have absurd incomes should pay absurd taxes, but at the same rate as
everyone else.

So, you're a flat-taxer? Are you aware that all flat tax schemes are
REgressive, ie the poor pay a higher share?

The wealthy enjoy greater benefits from the society that supports them.
Why should they not pay a *greater* much less an equal share of the
needed support?

DSK