If you check your history, you may find that JFK wanted tax rates dropped for low and middle income Americans. Can't verify that off the top of my head, but I can be corrected, if need be.
Kennedy asked that the top income tax rate be brought down from 91 percent to 65 percent.
Also, I don't think dividend taxes were part of the Kennedy equation.
Possibly not, but does that not encourage people to put more money in stocks that pay dividends thus stirring the economy? Wouldn't this be good news for retired folks who wish to live off dividend income?
And, remember, this was pre-Reagan tax rates.
And that has what to do with it? Should we really tax those that are smart enough to build our country at a 91% rate or 65% rate? Why should they be taxed higher than anyone else?
Otherwise, hey, it's exactly the same as today.
Not!!!!
I went back to that site I mentioned earlierto do some more calculations and found that someone making $30,000 and having one child would save 81.63% on their taxes. They would pay only $135 in income taxes for the whole year and you are resisting this as a giveaway to the wealthy? Is $30,000 with a kid to support considered wealthy to you and the Democrats Rick? Should we take more of this families income and spend it on supporting some repulsive art Rick? Maybe we should take more of this families income and use it to fund a health care plan even though they already have health care provided by their employer. Wouldn't that constitute a giveaway to the corporation he works for since they would no longer have to provide health care plans for their employees?
Noone is falling for the idea that the money is all going to the rich, so give it up. It only makes the Democrat party look bad...On second thought, keep it up and forget I said anything.
No, but they ARE worried about BORROWING and then spending what we do not have and leaving the debt for our children to pay off...something that has become A-Typical Behavior, whenever Republicans hold power.
They never cared before. The only difference this time is, it's the Republicans spending on their programs, instead of the Democrat programs. That's the only reason they are pretending to give a shit.
I would like to see the President and Congress vote Tax BREAKS for the middle class into the equation, and institute new taxes to shore-up the deficit we already have, and from the richest 5% of the population.
I'd like to see the bottom feeders pay their fair share.
"I went back to that site I mentioned earlier to do some more calculations and found that someone making $30,000 and having one child would save 81.63% on their taxes.
So this 81.63 percent savings (guess you stated it as a percentage to make it look bigger than it actually is) is about $100 right Dan?
"Noone is falling for the idea that the money is all going to the rich,"
I don't care what you're falling for or not falling for. I mentioned once that most people won't notice this cut, and I stand by that. I'm not trying to play it as what the right calls "class envy."
I said this tax cut is the equivalent of getting one of those blank checks from the credit card companies. The Republicans want to rip off one of those checks and use it to buy votes.
Which level of "scum" in our society are you referring to?
The scum that milks the system. The scum that don't pay their fair share, no matter what level they're at, and expect the rest of society to make up for it. The scum that don't contribute to society. The scum that think their entitled to something.....
If you check your history, you may find that JFK wanted tax rates dropped for low and middle income Americans. Can't verify that off the top of my head, but I can be corrected, if need be.
He did cut the top rate dramaticaly as Wolvie pointed out. He realized that as much as we love to hate them that it's the rich who have the money to invest and it's that investment that creates jobs. Something government can't do half as well. Kennedy realized this, today's Democrats don't.
Otherwise, hey, it's exactly the same as today.
Not!!!!
You're right. Kennedy's was much bigger, a 20% cut ! The Dems of today would be appaplectic if that happened. How dare they give a break to the rich ! They did the same thing in 1920, the marginal tax rate on those high-income earners was cut sharply from 60% or more (to a maximum of 73%) to just 25%, taxes paid by that group soared from roughly US$300-billion to US$700-billion per year. So even though we gave alot back or alot of relief guess what happened ? They paid more in taxes eventually because they were now taxed on their investments etc. Ta da ! It's simple economic theory
I don't care what you're falling for or not falling for. I mentioned once that most people won't notice this cut, and I stand by that.
Really ? You mean a retired person who lives on dividends who was already taxed once on it won't notice their dividends not being taxed ? Hmmm, Well since most retired people use them to live on perhaps they won't notice if they pay less.
The cut is the biggest for the middle class. Last year Bush also enacted a 10% bracket instead of the 15%.
I said this tax cut is the equivalent of getting one of those blank checks from the credit card companies. The Republicans want to rip off one of those checks and use it to buy votes.
Really ? I thought you said people wouldn't notice ? Which is it ? It's comical to hear a Democrat talking about buying votes and bemoaning spending money.
Not only that, but during the next four years(1964-68) the war in Vietnam spurred the economy more than any other single factor, and the employment figures were affected in the positive, mostly because of the fact that our armed forces expanded by millions, including material, ships, planes, etc. That war, was Big Business. ------------------------------------------------- Â Â
The Vietnam war might have helped unemployment but it was a huge drain on spending it cost billions and billions. Regarless of that Kennedy still cut those rates 20% for those evil rich dudes.
No, but they ARE worried about BORROWING and then spending what we do not have and leaving the debt for our children to pay off...something that has become A-Typical Behavior, whenever Republicans hold power.
Here's the thing Bill, believe it or not the cuts will actually grow the economy which is what's needed which will reduce the deficit. It's happened many times before when those taxes were cut and isn't limited to only republicans doing it.
I'm not laughing at you at all Rick. I respct your opinions I just disagree with them as you do mine. I do find it comical or ironic that Democrats are worried about spending money, even if we borrow to do it. That's never seemed to bother the left before as they propose new spending all the time when the money isn't there either.
If Bush proposed today putting 55 billion a year more into education even though it would add to the deficit would we hear a peep from the left ? Probably, that it was too little as usual but they wouldn't be talking about the deficit at all.
So this 81.63 percent savings (guess you stated it as a percentage to make it look bigger than it actually is) is about $100 right Dan?
Not even close. Married with one child under 17 and making $30,000 would see their taxes go from $735/year to $135/year which is a $600 savings or 81.63%.
Here's another one... Married with 2 children under 17 and making $40,000 would see their taxes go from $1,178/year to $45/year which is a $1,133 savings or 96.18%.
Would you prefer that we pay them instead of taxing them?
Is this what the Dems mean by rich? These "rich" people would have their tax burden almost eliminated and you say that they wouldn't even notice it.
I was thinking 80 percent of $135. Obviously, i was wrong.
Is there anything in this for single people? Or people without kids?
$600 per year. Ask yourself if you'd notice it. Maybe I'd notice $50 more a month.
Me? A rebate check I'd notice. Those I like. The reductions I would notice the day I had my taxes done, and I'd roll in the savings onto my April Quarterly Estimated.
"You don't see progressive taxes as punishment for success?"
No, I don't.
The government has a certain amount of money it needs to raise to function. The progressive tax makes sure the burden of funding it is spread out so it's lightest on the people can least afford it.
Is it fair? -- I don't know. But it's, in part created a society where a small percentage at the top live better than anyone in the history of planet. Most in the middle can live good lives by any standards, and those at the bottom can survive.
That's no small feat.
"Where is anyone promised they won't experience hardship?"
I was thinking 80 percent of $135. Obviously, i was wrong.
That is why we are here (or at least I am) to learn something.
Is there anything in this for single people? Or people without kids?
Not as much, but there is. They do not have as many people to support so not as many expenses.
$600 per year. Ask yourself if you'd notice it.
In that situation, I think I would notice if I got to keep most of my paycheck.
Maybe I'd notice $50 more a month.
That would depend on your income and expenses though. Again, what should we do, pay these people instead of taxing them something? The example that drops their tax down to $45/year means that they would pay less than a dollar a week. Do you not think that you would notice that?
Nothing scientific, just a hunch. If true, is it designed to help Americans, or buy votes?
You mean to tell me that the politicians try to please the people that got them elected ? Say it aint so, that would be like voting to increase certain benefits of people whom you know usually vote for your party. A shocking revelation indeed.
It's not a larger issue it is the issue in itself but of course it's politics that's what politicians do, You know it as well as I do that politicians cater to their constituants, it happens on both sides of the aisle. What's the alternative, getting into office and going against everything the people who voted for you want you to do ? Would you be suprised if you voted for a Democrat to have them vote for fewer gun restrictions, tax cuts, decreasing of spending and abortion rights ? I doubt he'd get elected again under that party. It's a non starter and a non issue IMO politcians vote for what their constituents elected them to do and if enough other people think it's a good idea they vote for it as a legislator and those in the public who think it's a good idea might also vote for them next time.
"It's not a larger issue it is the issue in itself but of course it's politics that's what politicians do,"
That's the fascinating part. Beliefs and ideals are part of the equation, but how someone gets to point where they advance them is what differentiates a politician from a statesman.
I love politics for the power plays and the horse race. That interests me. The Liberatarians and the Greenies can squabble over ideology. Ideologues are boring and tiresome.
Stephen Sondheim wrote a song for a Broadway musical where he used the line: "The art of making art, is putting it together." I think it, applies to political policy in much the same way -- figuring out what it takes to get it done.
You can have all kinds of ideas and all kinds of ideals, but if you can't advance them, what do you have?
Ok Rick, I said: "Where is anyone promised they won't experience hardship?"
You said: "Nowhere. Why are you asking me this?"
I ask because you said: "This is about spreading the burden of taxes out so it can be handled with the least amount of hardship. Doesn't that make sense?
It doesn't make sense and you're thinking of it all wrong in my opinion.
You think Joe, making $40,000 a year, should get a break and pay say 10% in income tax for example, because he doesn't make as much as Frank, making $75,000 a year, who should pay 20%.
Well, I see it as punisishing Frank for success. If you don't want hardship in your life, do something about it. To expect society to pick up where you fail is simply wrong.
You mean to tell me that the politicians try to please the people that got them elected ?
This brings up an interesting question: Should a lawmaker do what the constituents want or should he do what he feels is best for the people that elected him?
We have been discussing taxcuts, so... If a lawmaker honestly believes that this is not a good thing for one reason or another but those that elected him overwhelmingly want them, what should he do?
This is something I have wondered since my high school days when I asked a teacher the same question and got no real response. I mean, we elect people to represent us, but that does not mean they have to do what we want. On the other hand, if they don't, they probably won't get re-elected. So maybe it is a checks and balances type of scenario? Maybe this is why we are a Republic and not a Democracy? Any other ideas?
The individual can do very little. You try to advance your ideals and ideas through the mechanism of the Political Party. That's how you can most effectively exercise power. And that is how you gain power.
The constituents must have elected you because they felt they can trust you as a person. But you can't move ahead alone. That's what coalitiions and parties are for.
Dan, please explain why we are not a "Democracy"...Can you?
U.S. Constitution
Article. IV, Section. 4.
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government,and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands....
I am very interested in knowing how we became something else.
I could not find the words Democracy or democratic anywhere in the U.S. Constitution.
I am very interested in knowing how we became a "Democracy"?
We ARE a Democracy, a "Constitutional Democracy" in fact, in that each of us has a VOTE, and that is the most important factor.
Please show me in the Constitution, or any founding documents, where the word Democracy is even mentioned. I see Republican, but no Democracy or Democratic words mentioned. Or are you saying that the founding fathers wanted Republicans in charge and not the Democrats?
We are also a "representaive form" of a Democracy, or a "Republic", so what is it that you are really trying to say?
That we are not a Democracy or a mob rules type of government. This can be proven by many issues that effect minorities. If a minority of the people are concerned about something, then in a Democracy that is just too bad. In a Democracy the slaves would have never been set free due to the fact that the majority of the people did not care.
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government,
This being the case, the democrats currently residing in Washington are hereby given a 5 day notice to vacate their offices, so the Republicans can take total control. Since it is in the constitution, it's legal. No court battles! =)
"House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) acknowledged yesterday that his office called both the Federal Aviation Administration and the Justice Department to help track down 51 Texas House members who fled the state to derail a GOP congressional redistricting plan."
Rick: Out of concern for their welfare, I suppose.
There seems to be a lot of budging going on. It seems there's places all over the country that are trying it or talking about it. But isn't it a local or state issue?
Unlike the prescription program, it's not done on a federal level. Which I would think conservatives would be happy about.
They don't handle the taxes that would be taken out of the school district's budget and given to you.
If you check your history, you may find that JFK wanted tax rates dropped for low and middle income Americans. Can't verify that off the top of my head, but I can be corrected, if need be.
Kennedy asked that the top income tax rate be brought down from 91 percent to 65 percent.
Also, I don't think dividend taxes were part of the Kennedy equation.
Possibly not, but does that not encourage people to put more money in stocks that pay dividends thus stirring the economy? Wouldn't this be good news for retired folks who wish to live off dividend income?
And, remember, this was pre-Reagan tax rates.
And that has what to do with it? Should we really tax those that are smart enough to build our country at a 91% rate or 65% rate? Why should they be taxed higher than anyone else?
Otherwise, hey, it's exactly the same as today.
Not!!!!
I went back to that site I mentioned earlierto do some more calculations and found that someone making $30,000 and having one child would save 81.63% on their taxes. They would pay only $135 in income taxes for the whole year and you are resisting this as a giveaway to the wealthy? Is $30,000 with a kid to support considered wealthy to you and the Democrats Rick? Should we take more of this families income and spend it on supporting some repulsive art Rick? Maybe we should take more of this families income and use it to fund a health care plan even though they already have health care provided by their employer. Wouldn't that constitute a giveaway to the corporation he works for since they would no longer have to provide health care plans for their employees?
Noone is falling for the idea that the money is all going to the rich, so give it up. It only makes the Democrat party look bad...On second thought, keep it up and forget I said anything.
No, but they ARE worried about BORROWING and then spending what we do not have...
Since when? You know that when Clinton was bragging about a balanced budget that the debt was rising the whole time. What a crock.
Who are we borrowing the money from and what you have that money be put into instead?
No, but they ARE worried about BORROWING and then spending what we do not have and leaving the debt for our children to pay off...something that has become A-Typical Behavior, whenever Republicans hold power.
They never cared before. The only difference this time is, it's the Republicans spending on their programs, instead of the Democrat programs. That's the only reason they are pretending to give a shit.
I would like to see the President and Congress vote Tax BREAKS for the middle class into the equation, and institute new taxes to shore-up the deficit we already have, and from the richest 5% of the population.
I'd like to see the bottom feeders pay their fair share.
"I went back to that site I mentioned earlier to do some more calculations and found that someone making $30,000 and having one child would save 81.63% on their taxes.
So this 81.63 percent savings (guess you stated it as a percentage to make it look bigger than it actually is) is about $100 right Dan?
"Noone is falling for the idea that the money is all going to the rich,"
I don't care what you're falling for or not falling for. I mentioned once that most people won't notice this cut, and I stand by that. I'm not trying to play it as what the right calls "class envy."
I said this tax cut is the equivalent of getting one of those blank checks from the credit card companies. The Republicans want to rip off one of those checks and use it to buy votes.
Which level of "scum" in our society are you referring to?
The scum that milks the system. The scum that don't pay their fair share, no matter what level they're at, and expect the rest of society to make up for it. The scum that don't contribute to society. The scum that think their entitled to something.....
You got it in for society don't you JT?
The scum is everywhere -- and spreading -- isn't it?
I'm all for society.
I love society.
I'm pro society.
I'm anti-scum.
Well, your side has the politcal power, JT.
They can squash the scum like a bug, whoever or whatever they perceive them to be.
Seems to me, they're gettin' started.
They can squash the scum like a bug, whoever or whatever they perceive them to be.
Look out, fold!!! They are comin' after ya!!!
Rick,
He did cut the top rate dramaticaly as Wolvie pointed out. He realized that as much as we love to hate them that it's the rich who have the money to invest and it's that investment that creates jobs. Something government can't do half as well. Kennedy realized this, today's Democrats don't.
You're right. Kennedy's was much bigger, a 20% cut ! The Dems of today would be appaplectic if that happened. How dare they give a break to the rich ! They did the same thing in 1920, the marginal tax rate on those high-income earners was cut sharply from 60% or more (to a maximum of 73%) to just 25%, taxes paid by that group soared from roughly US$300-billion to US$700-billion per year. So even though we gave alot back or alot of relief guess what happened ? They paid more in taxes eventually because they were now taxed on their investments etc. Ta da ! It's simple economic theory
Really ? You mean a retired person who lives on dividends who was already taxed once on it won't notice their dividends not being taxed ? Hmmm, Well since most retired people use them to live on perhaps they won't notice if they pay less.
The cut is the biggest for the middle class. Last year Bush also enacted a 10% bracket instead of the 15%.
Really ? I thought you said people wouldn't notice ? Which is it ?
It's comical to hear a Democrat talking about buying votes and bemoaning spending money.
Glad I'm entertaining you.
You want to laugh at me, that's fine. I've been laughed at before.
I thought it was a legitmate issue.
Bill,
The Vietnam war might have helped unemployment but it was a huge drain on spending it cost billions and billions. Regarless of that Kennedy still cut those rates 20% for those evil rich dudes.
Here's the thing Bill, believe it or not the cuts will actually grow the economy which is what's needed which will reduce the deficit. It's happened many times before when those taxes were cut and isn't limited to only republicans doing it.
"Regarless of that Kennedy still cut those rates 20% for those evil rich dudes. "
You could stop spinning for a little while, yourself, Rob.
No one has called anyone evil. The only one who has shown any resentment toward wealthy people was Dennis, and he's not here.
No one is out to "soak the rich."
This is about spreading the burden of taxes out so it can be handled with the least amount of hardship. Doesn't that make sense?
Rick 5/20/03 8:40am
I'm not laughing at you at all Rick. I respct your opinions I just disagree with them as you do mine. I do find it comical or ironic that Democrats are worried about spending money, even if we borrow to do it. That's never seemed to bother the left before as they propose new spending all the time when the money isn't there either.
If Bush proposed today putting 55 billion a year more into education even though it would add to the deficit would we hear a peep from the left ? Probably, that it was too little as usual but they wouldn't be talking about the deficit at all.
O.K please explain by what you mean by that.
Yes, but for those lower-bracket scum-suckers out there, everything would be just fine.
Huh?
Quite the myopic viewpoint...
Yes, I'm narrow minded because I expect people to contribute to society, instead of milking society.
Well, your side has the politcal power, JT.
Thing is, they won't have it for long if they screw up.
They can squash the scum like a bug, whoever or whatever they perceive them to be.
Squash them? By expecting them to contribute?
Seems to me, they're gettin' started.
Gotta make up for lost time. Time to stop punishing people for trying to make something of their lives.
This is about spreading the burden of taxes out so it can be handled with the least amount of hardship. Doesn't that make sense?
Where is anyone promised they won't experience hardship?
"Time to stop punishing people for trying to make something of their lives."
No one is being punished. That's ridiculuous.
So this 81.63 percent savings (guess you stated it as a percentage to make it look bigger than it actually is) is about $100 right Dan?
Not even close. Married with one child under 17 and making $30,000 would see their taxes go from $735/year to $135/year which is a $600 savings or 81.63%.
Here's another one... Married with 2 children under 17 and making $40,000 would see their taxes go from $1,178/year to $45/year which is a $1,133 savings or 96.18%.
Would you prefer that we pay them instead of taxing them?
Is this what the Dems mean by rich? These "rich" people would have their tax burden almost eliminated and you say that they wouldn't even notice it.
I was thinking 80 percent of $135. Obviously, i was wrong.
Is there anything in this for single people? Or people without kids?
$600 per year. Ask yourself if you'd notice it. Maybe I'd notice $50 more a month.
Me? A rebate check I'd notice. Those I like. The reductions I would notice the day I had my taxes done, and I'd roll in the savings onto my April Quarterly Estimated.
Well if you're a retired person without kids who use dividends to supplement retirement income you would.
Maybe you wouldn't but many people will and do. They as well as others will also recieve the indirect benefits as well.
No one is being punished. That's ridiculuous.
Ever heard of progressive tax rates?
btw: Where is anyone promised they won't experience hardship?
Yes
You don't see progressive taxes as punishment for success?
btw: Where is anyone promised they won't experience hardship?
"You don't see progressive taxes as punishment for success?"
No, I don't.
The government has a certain amount of money it needs to raise to function. The progressive tax makes sure the burden of funding it is spread out so it's lightest on the people can least afford it.
Is it fair? -- I don't know. But it's, in part created a society where a small percentage at the top live better than anyone in the history of planet. Most in the middle can live good lives by any standards, and those at the bottom can survive.
That's no small feat.
"Where is anyone promised they won't experience hardship?"
Nowhere. Why are you asking me this?
The government has a certain amount of money it needs to raise to function.
The government will spend every dollar it has. The feds spend even more than they have. How much gov't needs to function is never an issue.
I was thinking 80 percent of $135. Obviously, i was wrong.
That is why we are here (or at least I am) to learn something.
Is there anything in this for single people? Or people without kids?
Not as much, but there is. They do not have as many people to support so not as many expenses.
$600 per year. Ask yourself if you'd notice it.
In that situation, I think I would notice if I got to keep most of my paycheck.
Maybe I'd notice $50 more a month.
That would depend on your income and expenses though. Again, what should we do, pay these people instead of taxing them something? The example that drops their tax down to $45/year means that they would pay less than a dollar a week. Do you not think that you would notice that?
I said: "Is there anything in this for single people? Or people without kids?
Dan said: "Not as much, but there is. They do not have as many people to support so not as many expenses. "
I tend to think they may not vote Republican, or generate large enough voting numbers get the attention of the party.
Nothing scientific, just a hunch. If true, is it designed to help Americans, or buy votes?
You mean to tell me that the politicians try to please the people that got them elected ? Say it aint so, that would be like voting to increase certain benefits of people whom you know usually vote for your party. A shocking revelation indeed.
Since we've both seemiingly established the motive, is there a larger issue, or is it only poltics?
It's not a larger issue it is the issue in itself but of course it's politics that's what politicians do, You know it as well as I do that politicians cater to their constituants, it happens on both sides of the aisle. What's the alternative, getting into office and going against everything the people who voted for you want you to do ? Would you be suprised if you voted for a Democrat to have them vote for fewer gun restrictions, tax cuts, decreasing of spending and abortion rights ? I doubt he'd get elected again under that party. It's a non starter and a non issue IMO politcians vote for what their constituents elected them to do and if enough other people think it's a good idea they vote for it as a legislator and those in the public who think it's a good idea might also vote for them next time.
"It's not a larger issue it is the issue in itself but of course it's politics that's what politicians do,"
That's the fascinating part. Beliefs and ideals are part of the equation, but how someone gets to point where they advance them is what differentiates a politician from a statesman.
I love politics for the power plays and the horse race. That interests me. The Liberatarians and the Greenies can squabble over ideology. Ideologues are boring and tiresome.
Stephen Sondheim wrote a song for a Broadway musical where he used the line: "The art of making art, is putting it together." I think it, applies to political policy in much the same way -- figuring out what it takes to get it done.
You can have all kinds of ideas and all kinds of ideals, but if you can't advance them, what do you have?
Ok Rick, I said:
"Where is anyone promised they won't experience hardship?"
You said: "Nowhere. Why are you asking me this?"
I ask because you said:
"This is about spreading the burden of taxes out so it can be handled with the least amount of hardship. Doesn't that make sense?
It doesn't make sense and you're thinking of it all wrong in my opinion.
You think Joe, making $40,000 a year, should get a break and pay say 10% in income tax for example, because he doesn't make as much as Frank, making $75,000 a year, who should pay 20%.
Well, I see it as punisishing Frank for success. If you don't want hardship in your life, do something about it. To expect society to pick up where you fail is simply wrong.
You mean to tell me that the politicians try to please the people that got them elected ?
This brings up an interesting question: Should a lawmaker do what the constituents want or should he do what he feels is best for the people that elected him?
We have been discussing taxcuts, so... If a lawmaker honestly believes that this is not a good thing for one reason or another but those that elected him overwhelmingly want them, what should he do?
This is something I have wondered since my high school days when I asked a teacher the same question and got no real response. I mean, we elect people to represent us, but that does not mean they have to do what we want. On the other hand, if they don't, they probably won't get re-elected. So maybe it is a checks and balances type of scenario? Maybe this is why we are a Republic and not a Democracy? Any other ideas?
The individual can do very little. You try to advance your ideals and ideas through the mechanism of the Political Party. That's how you can most effectively exercise power. And that is how you gain power.
The constituents must have elected you because they felt they can trust you as a person. But you can't move ahead alone. That's what coalitiions and parties are for.
Dan, please explain why we are not a "Democracy"...Can you?
U.S. Constitution
Article. IV, Section. 4.
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government,and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.
I am very interested in knowing how we became something else.
I could not find the words Democracy or democratic anywhere in the U.S. Constitution.
I am very interested in knowing how we became a
"Democracy"?
The constituents must have elected you because they felt they can trust you as a person.
This from a man that votes democrat.
We ARE a Democracy, a "Constitutional Democracy" in fact, in that each of us has a VOTE, and that is the most important factor.
Please show me in the Constitution, or any founding documents, where the word Democracy is even mentioned. I see Republican, but no Democracy or Democratic words mentioned. Or are you saying that the founding fathers wanted Republicans in charge and not the Democrats?
We are also a "representaive form" of a Democracy, or a "Republic", so what is it that you are really trying to say?
That we are not a Democracy or a mob rules type of government. This can be proven by many issues that effect minorities. If a minority of the people are concerned about something, then in a Democracy that is just too bad. In a Democracy the slaves would have never been set free due to the fact that the majority of the people did not care.
I don't know where you learnt-dis-chit, but it is quite a...wierd interpretation.
So when the constitution says that we are a "Republican Form of Government" what it actually means is that we are a Democracy?
Funny stuff. I don't know where you learnt-dis-chit (perhaps public school), but it is quite a weird interpretation.
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government,
This being the case, the democrats currently residing in Washington are hereby given a 5 day notice to vacate their offices, so the Republicans can take total control. Since it is in the constitution, it's legal. No court battles! =)
The remaining Dems will be happy to leave.
The city's been taken over by a gang of cutthroats the last couple years.
If I met Christie Todd Whitman, I'd say, congratulations and good wishes.
Too few moderate voices in this adminstration, but she was one of them. And she held an important post.
Shame to see her go.
Dean's not a Communist, although he's got a hard on for universal health care.
He's just a fruitcake. He doesn't have a snowballs chance.
The current occupant cannot even fullfill his PLEDGE of a Communist Prescription-Drug benefit.
Good
What don't you like about the prescription drug program for Medicare, JT?
DeLay Dragnetted for Texas Legislators
"House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) acknowledged yesterday that his office called both the Federal Aviation Administration and the Justice Department to help track down 51 Texas House members who fled the state to derail a GOP congressional redistricting plan."
Rick: Out of concern for their welfare, I suppose.
What don't you like about the prescription drug program for Medicare, JT?
That it's a big pyramid scheme that they want me to pay for.
I hope the president finds a way to make it work, somehow. It could make a difference in millions of lives.
It could make a difference in millions of lives.
So could school vouchers, but the Left doesn't want to seem to budge on that issue.
There seems to be a lot of budging going on. It seems there's places all over the country that are trying it or talking about it. But isn't it a local or state issue?
Unlike the prescription program, it's not done on a federal level. Which I would think conservatives would be happy about.
They don't handle the taxes that would be taken out of the school district's budget and given to you.
I don't think you can compare the two.