Former VP Al Gore on Apple board of directors

[Arden]

I'm going to laugh if RacerX and serpicolugnut are actually good friends in real life.

I do not believe anybody should be called "evil" if they are rich. They should reserve that term for sadists who desire the death of innocent people for political or social reasons. I think the Republicans should stop catering to the demands of the "upper crust" of this country by giving back to the 1% of people who control something like 80% of this nations wealth at the expense of the 99% who actually need that money.

Why do athletes go on strike unless they get $30 million/year contracts?
Why do corporations do everything they legally can to screw over their customers and other corporations?
Why do CEO's get to buy 8, 10, or 12 "vacation homes" when they each cost more than a few city blocks in an "average," suburban, middle-class neighborhood, which they won't even use?
Why do HMO's dictate what a patient gets and what he has to live without, even if he won't live without it?

The answer:

[Arden]

GREED.

[nickn]

Why do you allow the media to influence your thoughts?
Why do you believe everything your liberal friends (I'd actually assume, parents, or else just what you hear) tell you?

I want to go on with this post, however I fear, it's better to stop now...

[serpicolugnut]

I think the Republicans should stop catering to the demands of the "upper crust" of this country by giving back to the 1% of people who control something like 80% of this nations wealth at the expense of the 99% who actually need that money.

Here's some statistics for you (from fiscal year 2000)...

Incomes of $200,000-plus pay 47.5% of the $2.025 trillion in taxes. What's the percentage of families who earn more than $200,000? They're paying half of the total tax burden at $1 trillion. The $100,000 to $200,000 bracket pays 23.6% of the taxes, which means the taxpayers making over $100,000 are paying 71.1% of the total tax burden. The $75 to $100,000 bracket pays 11.8%, giving us a grand total of 82.9% of all taxes being paid by those making over $75,000 a year.

Nobody "controls" wealth. Wealth is produced, not controlled. The 1% of people you cite are the people creating jobs and prosperity in this country. Think about it. If you are so against rich people, go try getting your job from a poor person. It's not gonna happen.

As for Republicans "catering to the demands of the upper crust...". Lets examine who the Democrats cater to the demands of by looking at their biggest donors.

Trial Lawyers Assoc.... One of the richest, most powerful lobbies in the country. Labor Unions, another powerful lobby. Hollywood Elite... These are hardly the poor downtrodden masses.

The truth is both Democrats and Republics (and even the hypocritical Green party) are beholden to the organizations who make it possible for them to obtain and hold power. It's always been that way, and it probably will stay that way.

Why do athletes go on strike unless they get $30 million/year contracts? Why do corporations do everything they legally can to screw over their customers and other corporations? Why do CEO's get to buy 8, 10, or 12 "vacation homes" when they each cost more than a few city blocks in an "average," suburban, middle-class neighborhood, which they won't even use? Why do HMO's dictate what a patient gets and what he has to live without, even if he won't live without it?

Careful there arden... You are questioning a persons right to determine what their personal worth is. This starts the slippery slope down to communism. Let's face it - my services are not as valuable as someone like Steve Jobs are (at least in todays world), so I'm not going to be able to demand as much money as he does. So long as he obtains his wealth in accordance with the law, I have no moral right to question what he does with it. So what if he buys 8, 10, or 12 vacation homes that he doesn't even use? Those 12 vacation homes had to be built. The building of those 12 vacation homes generated jobs for hundreds of people. Once the house was built, the home had to be sold, again giving a job to someone.

Your heart is in the right place, and I'm sure once you start earning a living, you'll quickly understand not only the principles of capitalism, but also the practice of it.

[nickn]

I don't think it could have been said better.

[RacerX]

by serpicolugnut:
Iraq doesn't have to invade another country now to wreak havoc on them. Through their direct connection to terrorist groups (Al Qaeda and others), all they have to do is supply these thugs with the WMD we know they have, and we could have Sept. 11 on a much grander scale.

To date there have been no connections with al Qaeda and the government of Iraq. Actually they are enemies as the government of Iraq has been actively suppressing many of the groups al Qaeda says they are fighting for and because Iraq poses a threat to Saudi Arabia.

You would do us all a favor by learning what it is that motivates all of the parties in this conflict. Many of the civilian leaders in the military have ties to profit making ventures, including Cheney, who's company (Haliburton) was the only company considered in the reconstruction of the Iraqi oil fields (what happen to the bid process there?).

Because Reagan finished the job with Libya. After Reagan put out an assasination attempt on Khadafi, and his daughter was killed in the assult, Khadfi was neutralized as a threat. We haven't had any problems with him since then.

Why has that neutralized Khadafi? He is still there, still the same person. Reagan was helping Hussein when he was bombing Libya, maybe Reagan's old friend could be neutralized without war the same way that Khadafi was.

Of course, Khadafi isn't sitting on one of the largest oil fields left in the world, but that shouldn't be a factor... should it?

Also, please get your facts right when you quote stats I've thrown out. My "$80K income", is actually for a family of 3, as I've stated. That's also before taxes. While $80/year might be alot for a family of 3 in some areas of the country, here in the Atlanta area, it is not.

In the US, a family is generally thought of as having 2.2 children. Your family income in is the upper 25% of all families, and considering that you have less than the average number of children, that means that it is supporting fewer people with the same amount. My numbers assume that you have a family income supporting 4.2 people, not the 3 you actually have. If you are in an income bracket that most Americans can only dream about (specially those who loss their jobs since Bush came into office), I don't think you should be whining about your financial state.

RacerX...tell me sir, how have I demonized you? You made some statements that reflected your collectivist views, and I simply made a reference to it, while also apologizing if you were not in fact a collectivst. That's hardly demonizing.

Collectivist? Tell us all what you originally said about me before your posts were edited.

[RacerX]

by serpicolugnut
Careful there arden... You are questioning a persons right to determine what their personal worth is. This starts the slippery slope down to communism. Let's face it - my services are not as valuable as someone like Steve Jobs are (at least in todays world), so I'm not going to be able to demand as much money as he does. So long as he obtains his wealth in accordance with the law, I have no moral right to question what he does with it. So what if he buys 8, 10, or 12 vacation homes that he doesn't even use? Those 12 vacation homes had to be built. The building of those 12 vacation homes generated jobs for hundreds of people. Once the house was built, the home had to be sold, again giving a job to someone.

There is no slippery slope to communism, but there is one to hyper inflation. It is fine to pay what people are worth, but that worth should be kept in perspective. When studying the economy and watching how different areas spin out of control with regard to the rest of the economy, yes, regulation should be brought in to check those areas. Some areas of note: college tuition, sports salaries, CEO salaries. All of those examples are unchecked and are not increasing at the same rate as the rest of the economy.

Don't let the RED SCARE trick you into thinking that regulation is communism. This country works best when there are balances. Unchecked capitalism leads to sweat shops. Money for money's sake is in fact the heart of most evil in the world. People die in this country because the people at the top put the safety of the people at the bottom second to profits. Capitalism without regulation is greed, plane and simple.

But lets take this a step further. Hussein builds a ton of palaces that he most likely is never going to use. The building of those palaces generated jobs for hundreds of people. Once the palace was built, the place would be destroyed by bombing, again giving a job to someone to rebuild it. Aren't we doing capitalism in Iraq a major disservice by bringing democracy there?

[nickn]

Firstly, you assume that Hussein pays these people, they could be working off punishment, or they could be working because he said so.

Secondly, College tuition is a bad example, in many many states in the US college can be more or less free. Georgia and Texas are two I know for sure. I go to a good sized school, other than paying my house note, utilities, and food, I don't pay a dime for college, I can take anywhere from 6 hours to 19 hours, and not pay a dime, other than for books.

So college tuition is a bad example....