Rupert,
Where do I start?
Ok...Let's begin with the "will of the majority". Current polls indicate about 75% of the American people wish for a withdrawl or redeployment of American forces in Iraq. They voted for a "change of course" last month.
So, is the "majority" being heard? Or, instead...after four years of a failed policy are there calls for increasing American military presence in Iraq?
Feel free to tell me. I assure you that I'll listen, even though those in power don't. I don't control this situation, nor do the majority of citizens that have voiced their disapproval.
Interesting that you believe in the "will of the majority" but deny the protections offerred by the United States Constitution that assure the rights of the "minorities". Supreme Court decisions have again and again "constructively" decided to uphold those same rights under the "rule of law", whether they concern a religious group that has "unpopular beliefs",
people of a minority ethnic background seeking education and voting opportunities, or gender equality. Even those that wish to deface or burn the American flag (though I don't agree with doing this action), have been given the freedom to do so as an act of "free speech". Their actions, though hardly a "majority view" are constitutionally protected.
Regarding of the "right to privacy" that is guaranteed by the 4th amendment, and the FISA law, and our current administration's disregard of same, it is hoped that this matter will be addressed in the courts. Those that have violated their oath to "preserve and defend" the constitution should be held accountable. As should those that have done away with habeus corpus.
In summation, please realize that the constitution has provisions that, although enjoyed by all, do in fact protect those in the "minority" as well.
Matters of "invasion of privacy", "suspension of habeus corpus", or any other disregard of those rights, will be dealt with via the judicial system, (and btw...that's not the majority).

I agree that most people in this country think we need to make some changes in Iraq. They don't think we should withdraw. They just think we need to make some changes. Most people in government think the same thing. Even President Bush thinks we need to make some changes. That's why he has hired a new Sec of Defense.

So...hmm...what has he been "deciding" for the past four years?
Or, hmm...is this an admission that there really wasn't a "plan" to begin with?
There certainly were plenty of lies.
Where are his clothes?

They had a plan but the insurgents have severely disrupted that plan. It is obvious that the Administration totally underestimated the strength of the insurgency.

I don't think there were any lies. A lie is "a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive." The fact that they never found any WMDs does not mean they lied.

Plan??? Huhh???
Are you making yet another excuse?
False statement? Does that include trying to tie Saddam with 9-11?
They didn't lie???
It figures.

Powell seems to have a better grasp, and he wasn't a member of the ISG.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...jU0&refer=home

I think Bush did think that Saddam may have been involved with 9/11. If you remember, that guy Richard Clarke said that Bush kept asking him to see if he could find evidence of Saddam's involvement with 9/11. Why would Bush have kept asking him, if Bush was not convinced that there was a connection? If you remember, there were reports that linked Muhammad Atta to some Iraqi intelligence officers. At one time, they were pretty confident that those reports were accurate. Later on, they realized that they could not confirm the accuracies of those reports.

So once again, something is only a lie if the person saying it knows that the information is false.

Rupert,
Seems to me that you DO really want to know.
Heck, most decent Americans would like to know more about the war they were sold...and bought.
Truth in advertising? Nahh...doesn't play too well in DC.
Too bad so many kids had to die for it. Both theirs and ours.
Just my take...cause "it figures"...Bush was looking for an excuse (rationale) for the invasion. Lots of crude (2nd largest in the world) was up for grabs.
Cheney was the puppeteer (Halliburton, pipelines, military supply, no-bid contracts).
The "cheerleader" did his best. He even landed on the flight deck of the A. Lincoln to tell us all 1368 days ago that the "mission" had been "accomplished".
Too bad that it hasn't been...but "it figures".

Hey, Rupert,

Yes, I do agree that the majority of Americans fall somewhere in a middle area on politics (and yes, I too imagine you and I would probably find more common ground than difference between us), but I think the original statement brought up for debate was that there was little difference between the current Democratic and Republican party, and there I disagree. In the 1950s, I would agree with you-- really, right up until the Republicans aligned themselves with the Religious Right (credit Reagan for that). Since then, I think there's been an extremism creeping into Republican leadership. At this point in time, I absolutely see a difference in the agendas of the two parties (and I think a lot of those people have confused capitalism with Christianity). In the future, they may seem fairly similar again, but not right now. And Bush has accelerated the influx of religion in the Republican party, and I think the party is starting to pay the price for it, because religious faith is inevitably marginalizing because it works on a precept of "my faith is right and yours is wrong." (Unless you're a pagan, but they can't even get a crummy pentacle on the graves of pagan soldiers, so clearly no one's listening to pagans). And saying "I think lots of Democrats wanted a cut in the capital gains tax" is not the same as Democrats spearheading an effort to cut it, because "I think" isn't proof. So until such time as they do push for it, we have to assume they don't.

I find it very, very hard to believe most Americans would approve of Gitmo. What I find interesting (and depressing) about the state of our nation is the lack of interest most Americans seem to have in Gitmo, or the FBI whistleblower who was mistakenly imprisoned and then tortured for three months until the Army realized their mistake, the end of habeus corpus, or really, Iraq (how many Americans know the difference between a ****e and a Sunni?), although most people seem to be aware we're over there, anyway. And I think it's because the average American doesn't feel himself or herself personally affected by it. And if it doesn't directly affect us, we don't care. Bring back the draft, and you'll see how fast Americans start caring about Iraq. And it may be the only option, if Bush is determined to send more troops over. Which, for the record, I do think is necessary if we're to make an attempt to stablize what we've done before we get out, but I don't think we have the troops, so I think it's like saying, "I should pay off my parents' mortgage with my lottery winnings." Sure. Except I don't have any. And I don't feel I have the right to demand other people's sons and daughters get sent over for what I think is a lost cause.

Regarding income levels and taxes on capital gains (not your post, Rupert; another poster)- no, I'm not wealthy, but that doesn't mean I'm not allowed to have an opinion on whether the wealthy should pay more in taxes than the middle-class and poor. Of course they should; they have more money. A family making $25,000 a year still needs a place to live, food to eat and money to pay for the doctor. And last I checked, the price of a cheeseburger wasn't staggered according to income. So, proportinately speaking, the low and middle-income pay a far higher percentage of their income towards essentials-- food, housing, health care, than do the wealthy. Which amounts to an tax on the poor and middle-class. It's why I favor raising the wealthy's income tax before I do state sales tax-- a larger proportion of the poor and middle-class income goes to sales tax than does the wealthy. Especially in a state like Arkansas (as Danzig pointed out) where even food is taxed.

Tax rates have risen and fallen throughout our history, but it seems to me the rich always seem to have enough for multiple houses, cars, and clothing that costs more than I make in a year. I don't have sympathy for pleas of overtaxation from people who own more than one home, and certainly not from people whose main income is off of dividends from stocks-- they're not even working for that money. They've got multiple homes, cars, servents, etc. They can afford to pay more of that disposable income so the government can keep running. So they have four homes instead of five. Cry me a river.

And yes, I own stocks and bonds. Not a lot, but I do. And I don't resent being taxed on them. I consider myself lucky enough to be able to set a little aside every month for retirement and long-term emergencies every month. So tax me on them. S'okay with me.

Here's a transcript of a statement to the Joint Economic Committe on the flat tax. It's old- 1995, so the tax rates on the wealthiest are lower now than they were then, but the gist of the argument still holds:

http://www.ctj.org/html/tjmjec.htm

The most interesting thing about the flat tax is that it says interest would not be taxed. Which means those that live off of investments (mostly the super-rich) would pay no income tax, while those of us who work 9-5 would pay tax. Isn't that interesting?

i think the biggest hurdle to a flat tax or national sales tax is the earned income tax credit. they'd have to figure out another way to take my overpayment in taxes and give it to someone who paid none, but somehow still deserve a (cough, cough) refund.

i have a book here about 'hitlers pope'. that's the title at least. excellent book. the author originally decided to write the book to defend pius xii. vatican allowed him access to a lot of documents--and that's when he found that he couldn't write anything defending the pope--and the vatican was none to happy to find they had helped someone write something like that!

No, the biggest hurdle for the flat tax and national sales tax is that it will raise taxes on the poor and middle-class and lower them on the wealthy, and reduce them to zero for members of what a lawyer I know refers to as, 'The Lucky Sperm Club" (those people who inherit their wealth and don't work, but live off dividends). The EITC (Earned Income Tax Credit) is actually an incredibly effective program for lifting working families just above the poverty level (you have to be a working head of household, so teenagers and the unemployed can't qualify). From Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earned_Income_Tax_Credit

I think a combination of some type of flat tax and national sales tax could work.

Here is what my idea would be. We could have a national sales tax of around 5%. There would be no income tax for people in low tax brackets. So if you only make $30,000 a year, you would pay no income tax. The only tax you would pay would be the sales tax. So even if that person spent the entire $30,000 that they made, that means that they would only be paying a 5% tax on that. That's not too bad.

For people making $100,000 a year, you could make them pay a 10% flat income tax in addition to the 5% sales tax. For anyone who makes over $200,000 a year, you could give them a flat-tax of about 20%.

The most important thing would be to get rid of all of these tax right-offs. I've read some stories about some really rich people that pay practically no taxes because of all kinds of tax right-offs and tax shelters. We could have a flat-tax where you can't write anything off. If a person makes $1 million, they would have to pay $200,000(20%) in income tax and there would be no way to get around it.

Sounds good to me. It also sounded good when Forbes used it as a policy platform a dozen or so years ago.

Problem is, the tax code is incredibly huge. How do you turn around a ship that big? I wish it would happen, but there's way too much top heavy interest group clout to let it happen. Besides the rich there are attorneys, accountants, banks, insurance companies, none of which would stand to benefit by massive tax reform.

It sounds great but unfortunately i think it's empty rehtoric.

Yeah...just think of the jobless rate going from 4% to 10% with all those people outta work. The IRS codes weigh like 35lbs....burn the damn thing and start over!:eek:

Yes, there would certainly be ton of people lobbying against it. The accountants and tax attorneys would certainly be against it. I'm sure that all the big corporations would be against it too. Alot of these big corporations don't pay much in taxes with all the loopholes in the current system.

Rupert,
You seem to know a lot more about this tax stuff than I do. I admit, I really don't know much about it. My accountant handles it.
So, just a question...aren't the "loopholes in the current system" there for EVERYONE??? What are these people complaining about?
They must be whiners.
Loopholes are for all!