what the liberal/democrat are thinking about doing.

Rangel (future way and means chairman) wants the draft reinstituted!

And the rest of the democrats are trying to decide whether to go long, big, or get out of Iraq. Does anyone remember what the liberal democrat from Texas (LBJ) did in Vietnam. He went big and long.

The other item of interest since the elections are over that I find interesting is that no media outlets publicized Murtha's participation in the ABSCAM scandals. While he didn't take any money he told the wired F.B.I. agent he may in the future. Funny how the media stopped being unbiased so long ago.

I'm still recalling the dire warning from Democrats in 2004: "If you vote for Bush he will reinstate the draft!"

what the liberal/democrat are thinking about doing.

Rangel (future way and means chairman) wants the draft reinstituted!

{Won`t happen.}

And the rest of the democrats are trying to decide whether to go long, big, or get out of Iraq. Does anyone remember what the liberal democrat from Texas (LBJ) did in Vietnam. He went big and long.

{Majority wants out.}

The other item of interest since the elections are over that I find interesting is that no media outlets publicized Murtha's participation in the ABSCAM scandals. While he didn't take any money he told the wired F.B.I. agent he may in the future. Funny how the media stopped being unbiased so long ago.

I did see several mentions of Abscam and Murtha.

The other item of interest since the elections are over that I find interesting is that no media outlets publicized Murtha's participation in the ABSCAM scandals. While he didn't take any money he told the wired F.B.I. agent he may in the future. Funny how the media stopped being unbiased so long ago.

Huh? It was all over the news. Mentioned several times in reports even on PBS. Like I said....huh?

you guys know my views, and its hard for me to say this but I agree with Rangel.
He doesnt really want it reinstated but knows that if it is/was, we would be way more careful about entering wars since more families would have something to lose.

He doesnt really want it reinstated but knows that if it is/was, we would be way more careful about entering wars since more families would have something to lose.
Exactly his point.

A great book is "The New American Militarisim" which came out last year I believe. Really looks into the impact of Vietnam and the all volunteer military have had on the psyche of the Pentagon and policy makers.

One key theme of the book is that since it's so easy to just use force, we've lost all ability to negotiate political solutions.

From Clinton to Bush 43 this couldn't be more apparent.

-spence

Only thing about a draft is what will be the parameters for exemption....many favored sons were able to get out of going back in the day.

Btw now that the elections are over gas prices are going thru the roof.Gotta love change.Pols are all the same.Right wing fanatic or liberal weany it just doesn't matter,we the the people will always be screwed regardless of what "party" is in power.

It's rather funny, all the anti war folks are now talking about having a draft. These people just make less and less sense everyday, they want our troops out of Iraq ASAP, yet they want a draft, wich will mean sending more troops into Iraq?? :confused: I dont get liberals. They make no f'ing sense

I dont get liberals. They make no f'ing sense
You don't make any sense. Reread your own post!!!

-spence

I missed the Murtha abscam sound bites, thank you.

As far as Rangel wanting/not wanting the draft I think his true desires might backfire.

Btw now that the elections are over gas prices are going thru the roof.Gotta love change.Pols are all the same.Right wing fanatic or liberal weany it just doesn't matter,we the the people will always be screwed regardless of what "party" is in power.


Oh yeah its the dems now :laugha:

It's rather funny, all the anti war folks are now talking about having a draft. These people just make less and less sense everyday, they want our troops out of Iraq ASAP, yet they want a draft, wich will mean sending more troops into Iraq?? :confused: I dont get liberals. They make no f'ing sense


You could`nt make this up :tooth: or could you?

You could`nt make this up :tooth: or could you?

You tell me, you guys are the ones calling for the draft! Why have a draft if you want to get out of Iraq ASAP?:confused:

No you couldn't make this up. When Queen Pelosi ascends the throne, watch out.

Don't expect much of anything earth shattering from this bunch. If in the unlikely event they actually draw a consensus amongst their own special interest groups and caucuses to pass major legislation filibusters and vetoes await. I foresee more of the same with the only real difference being the addition of a higher pitched whine factor.

It's not about getting out of Iraq; it's about not getting into a war in the first place. The whole idea is if you have to send your own son/daughter off to fight you will be less likely to vote for war.

It's easy for those in power to start a war when their own families are sitting home safe and they can send off Joe Shmoe who is probably uneducated, impoverished, and has few other opportunities available to him. :liquify:

You tell me, you guys are the ones calling for the draft! Why have a draft if you want to get out of Iraq ASAP?:confused:

It's not about getting out of Iraq; it's about not getting into a war in the first place. The whole idea is if you have to send your own son/daughter off to fight you will be less likely to vote for war.

It's easy for those in power to start a war when their own families are sitting home safe and they can send off Joe Shmoe who is probably uneducated, impoverished, and has few other opportunities available to him. :liquify:

You might want to research the current average education level of the American Military because the actual fact is our troops are better educated than their civilians counterparts. This whole stupid/uneducated Joe Schmoe GI thing is nothing but a bunch of BS. I see Rangels ploy as nothing but a veiled attempt at blackmailing military aged Americans.: "if we dont get of Iraq right now you will be forced against your will to join the military".

I see Rangels ploy as nothing but a veiled attempt at blackmailing military aged Americans.: "if we dont get of Iraq right now you will be forced against your will to join the military".
Utter nonsense.

This has nothing to do with blackmail or education.

It's about how loose our policy makers have become with the all volunteer military.

It's about making sure we only wage war when it's really necessary, and then ensuring we give our troops everything they need.

It's the assumption that if Congress was to send their kids and grandkids to fight a war, they might think a bit harder about what exactly they were supporting.

Sure, it's a stunt...and nothing more, but the message is pretty true.

-spence

It's easy for those in power to start a war when their own families are sitting home safe and they can send off Joe Shmoe who is probably uneducated, impoverished, and has few other opportunities available to him. :liquify:

You owe the men and women of the military an apologee. That is a ridiculous thing to say.

It's not about getting out of Iraq; it's about not getting into a war in the first place. The whole idea is if you have to send your own son/daughter off to fight you will be less likely to vote for war.

It's easy for those in power to start a war when their own families are sitting home safe and they can send off Joe Shmoe who is probably uneducated, impoverished, and has few other opportunities available to him. :liquify:


You make me sick.

Go Tell my buddy who's currently in the Armys medical school program he's an idiot. I mean he ONLY has his Masters degree and will be a doctor in a few years. Pretty dumb huh?

You're a typical liberal who knows jack %$%$%$%$ about the people who serve in the armed forces. Go educate yourself and get back to me regarding our military's education level. Because clearly you are the uneducated one! Not our miltary.

You make me sick, go say what you just posted to the next Marine you see in uniform. I'm sure that will go over will.

sounds like a "botched joke"....hee hee

It's not about getting out of Iraq; it's about not getting into a war in the first place. The whole idea is if you have to send your own son/daughter off to fight you will be less likely to vote for war.

It's easy for those in power to start a war when their own families are sitting home safe and they can send off Joe Shmoe who is probably uneducated, impoverished, and has few other opportunities available to him. :liquify:

They can't help themselves, it really is the way they think. :hs: It floors me that this line if thinking exists.

QUICK - PILE ON SCOOBY BEFORE HE REALIZES HIS SILLY POST!!!

It's much easier than debating the substance of the issue!

-spence

What Scoobe said is an issue as well as every reply he received in return. How is, from your point of view what scoobe said have validity and everyones contrary opinon be meaningless? Its all part of the essense of the issue/s.

Everyone is welcome to an opinon, and everyone has the right to a different opinon. Not everyones opinon has deep meaning and not everyone thoughts are shallow.

I believe for you to chastise the contrary opinon the way you just did is shallow. It shows a chink in your armor.

And scoobe you'd better check and see just how many of those officials in Washington have sons and daughters in Iraq serving in the armed forces that are from both sides of the table.

Utter nonsense.

This has nothing to do with blackmail or education.

It's about how loose our policy makers have become with the all volunteer military.

It's about making sure we only wage war when it's really necessary, and then ensuring we give our troops everything they need.

It's the assumption that if Congress was to send their kids and grandkids to fight a war, they might think a bit harder about what exactly they were supporting.

Sure, it's a stunt...and nothing more, but the message is pretty true.

-spence

As usual your post is "Utter BS". This whole draft issue is simply a way to avoid fighting at any cost.

As usual your post is "Utter BS". This whole draft issue is simply a way to avoid fighting at any cost.
This statement is simply a way to avoid discussing the issue at any cost!!!

Seriously, I'm sick of the Dems are wimps mantra.

Charles Rangle is a freaking Combat Veteran for christmas sake.

-spence

This statement is simply a way to avoid discussing the issue at any cost!!!

Seriously, I'm sick of the Dems are wimps mantra.

Charles Rangle is a freaking Combat Veteran for christmas sake.

-spence

Utter Nonsense but if the shoe fits. At this point my premise is "If Spence is against it, its good for America".

I think thay Rangle's point is this: If we had a draft, those who represent us and vote for war would think twice about voting for war if their own sons and daughters were subject to that draft. After seeing how our present leadership personally handled the draft, I think that Rangle could use a lesson in cynicism. Our All-Volunteer Soldiers are the best that ever put a boot to the Earth. And they've been betrayed by our politicians.

Don't expect much of anything earth shattering from this bunch. If in the unlikely event they actually draw a consensus amongst their own special interest groups and caucuses to pass major legislation filibusters and vetoes await. I foresee more of the same with the only real difference being the addition of a higher pitched whine factor.


You guys kill me :rotfl: The pubs have been stroking the same cat for years now and with a change in name only you`re blaming the dems for what you claimed the pubs were doing all along... tickle me pink :btu:

As usual your post is "Utter BS". This whole draft issue is simply a way to avoid fighting at any cost.


I`m with Spence.... you are needed at balloon fests only :wavey:

You guys kill me :rotfl: The pubs have been stroking the same cat for years now and with a change in name only you`re blaming the dems for what you claimed the pubs were doing all along... tickle me pink :btu:

And what would that be?

I`m with Spence.... you are needed at balloon fests only :wavey:

Big surprise.

Our All-Volunteer Soldiers are the best that ever put a boot to the Earth. And they've been betrayed by our politicians.
AMEN.

-spence

And what would that be?


You are smart.... you know.

Utter Nonsense but if the shoe fits. At this point my premise is "If Spence is against it, its good for America".

:faga:


The gloves are off.

:faga:


The gloves are off.
Be careful what you wish for :hee:

His statement was idiotic...I'll restrain myself.

-spence

Be careful what you wish for :hee:

His statement was idiotic...I'll restrain myself.

-spence

Utter Nonsense

Your post was nonsense as it's easily refuted by publicly available statements. Your interpretation is based on how you want to see his stunt, and not for what it really is.

-spence

Your post was nonsense as it's easily refuted by publicly available statements. Your interpretation is based on how you want to see his stunt, and not for what it really is.

-spence

Hmmm.....So you think I'm the only one who holds that opinion. Your interpretation of publicly available statements is sound (only if you agree with them) and all other interpretations are "utter nonsense", but on the other hand if you dont agree with publicly available statements they become right wing spin and are totally dismissed. When someone takes exception to the "G.I's are stupid" mantra, you accuse them of "piling on" a silly post. You respond to others opinion by quickly reverting to veiled insults and third person name calling with your: idiocy, nonsense, makes no sense routine; All the while accusing others of not debating the issue. And dont forget, nothing personal here but "Its the Policy Stupid".

Hmmm.....So you think I'm the only one who holds that opinion.
I think the Rangle issue has been distorted by both sides, few people are really listening to his own words anymore!
Your interpretation of publicly available statements is sound (only if you agree with them) and all other interpretations are "utter nonsense", but on the other hand if you dont agree with publicly available statements they become right wing spin and are totally dismissed.
No, I only claimed your interpretation of Rangle's stunt was nonsense ;)

When someone takes exception to the "G.I's are stupid" mantra, you accuse them of "piling on" a silly post.
The only "G.I.'s are stupid" mantra is the one used to defame war critics by accusing them of defaming the troops.

I don't believe Scooby thinks our troops are dumb...but I do think he made a very inarticulate statement.

But considering how the Military is having to lower standards in order to meet enlistment targets, it's easy for some to draw a parallel to Vietnam era stigma's...in a slippery slope sort of way.

You respond to others opinion by quickly reverting to veiled insults and third person name calling with your: idiocy, nonsense, makes no sense routine; All the while accusing others of not debating the issue. And dont forget, nothing personal here but "Its the Policy Stupid".
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH :jester:

My comments are in context.

Unlike many, I don't cherry pick fringe kookisims and whitewash others so I can define my opponent as I'd like to see them. It's you who are trigger happy as any with the "left wing loony" retort to anything which is uncomfortable or difficult.

My insults are not veiled, I'm calling BULL%$%$%$%$ on this intellectually sloppy and boorish mode of communication you so embrace, which avoids the real issues in favor of a poke to the liberal straw man with an overworn stick.

Instead of getting all in a huff, how about responding to my utter nonsense post? The meat, the substance of the issue.

Would Congress and the President view using US force differently if the burden was shared not by just those who choose to sign up...but by those who enjoy it's protection!

It's a valid and perhaps critical question to ask at this juncture in the history of our country. As I've said before, yes, it's a stunt...but given how receptive the political climate has been for constructive debate, perhaps that's the only way to get the question addressed.

-spence

A few misconceptions and twists are made in these arguments - I found this on mostly DOD sites:

The American All Volunteer Military is better educated on average than the population of America. A higher percentage, significantly, of american military have HSD and those that do not are usually bootstrapped in a program for GED. A higher percentage of military from 18-35 have some college compared to the average population of America. Half of all americans from 18-24 do not qualify for military service due to health / education requirements.

Ethnicly, black americans are recruiting somewhat above and hispanic / asian american are recruiting at below their percentage of population. Recruitment of black americans is trending down.

The enlistment recruiting well mirrors the averages for America.

Interesting article:

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Dec2005/d20051213mythfact.pdf

Reading Rangel's own statements, I don't think his argument has anything to do with education...but rather economics and the notion of "shared" sacrifice.

While I don't completely agree with his argument, Rangel does make a very valid point.

One one hand the War on Terror is being pitched as the single greatest threat to Western civilization this century, yet on the other we're being told to just "keep shopping" while the government cuts taxes and continues to rack up the national debt for our children.

To Rangel's point...shouldn't this sacrifice be shared among all Americans (including corporate interests) if the stakes are really that high?

-spence

Instead of getting all in a huff, how about responding to my utter nonsense post? The meat, the substance of the issue.

Would Congress and the President view using US force differently if the burden was shared not by just those who choose to sign up...but by those who enjoy it's protection!

-spence

The utter nonsense is the notion that this issue is about a possible abstract consequence of the Draft reinstatement. The very basis for Rangels proposal is incorrect. His statement that the military disproprtionately consists of those of lower social bearing (Undeducated, poor, and minorities) is completely false. Want to debate the real issues? Heres a few of hundreds.

1) Forcibily removing Mothers and Fathers between the ages of 18 and 42 from a family structure.

2) Diluting the strongest and most effecient Miltary Unit on the face of the earth.

3) Lowering current Military admission standards

4) Substantial financial implications to support a milatary draft and its cojoined social/community service alternative (draft deferment option).

The very basis for Rangels proposal is incorrect. His statement that the military disproprtionately consists of those of lower social bearing (Undeducated, poor, and minorities) is completely false.
Actually, Rangel's statements (as he's made them) seem to be supported by Pentagon statistics and non-partisan research done over the past few years.


Nearly 1/2 of new recruits came from lower-middle-class to poor households

Nearly 2/3 of Army recruits in 2004 came from counties in which median household income is below the U.S. median

All of the Army's top 20 counties for recruiting had lower-than-national median incomes, 12 had higher poverty rates, and 16 were non-metropolitan


Source: Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/03/AR2005110302528.html)

Put Rangel's comments (http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/ny15_rangel/PR112006.html)in this context and it would seem as though his argument is more compelling than you might think.

-spence

Actually, Rangel's statemes (as he's made them) seem to be supported by Pentagon statistics and non-partisan research done over the past few years.


Nearly 1/2 of new recruits came from lower-middle-class to poor households

Nearly 2/3 of Army recruits in 2004 came from counties in which median household income is below the U.S. median

All of the Army's top 20 counties for recruiting had lower-than-national median incomes, 12 had higher poverty rates, and 16 were non-metropolitan


Source: Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/03/AR2005110302528.html)

-spence

Thats interesting when compared to these DOD statistics.

The overwhelming majority of military personnel killed in action in Afghanistan and Iraq — nearly 74 percent — have been white. Hispanic/Latino deaths make up about 11.5 percent; blacks account for less than 10 percent. Yet, the overall U.S. population of more than 300 million is 14 percent Hispanic and 12 percent black.

Thats interesting when compared to these DOD statistics.

The overwhelming majority of military personnel killed in action in Afghanistan and Iraq — nearly 74 percent — have been white. Hispanic/Latino deaths make up about 11.5 percent; blacks account for less than 10 percent. Yet, the overall U.S. population of more than 300 million is 14 percent Hispanic and 12 percent black.
You're comparing different stats. Who ever said the poorer communities were minority?

Additionally you'd need to study where the various minority groups served and where the deaths were occuring for it to have much meaning.

-spence

You're comparing different stats. Who ever said the poorer communities were minority?

Additionally you'd need to study where the various minority groups served and where the deaths were occuring for it to have much meaning.

-spence

My guess is the, ethnicity and number of dead will remain constant with the current statistic even after the location of death data has been extrapolated and interjected to the statistic formula.

My guess is the, ethnicity and number of dead will remain constant with the current statistic even after the location of death data has been extrapolated and interjected to the statistic formula.
And in context with Rangel's Bill, it would still be moot ;)

-spence

And in context with Rangel's Bill, it would still be moot ;)

-spence

These are some of the REAL issues and consequences relative to Rangles proposal. They are not moot.

1) Forcibily removing Mothers and Fathers between the ages of 18 and 42 from a family structure.

2) Diluting the strongest and most efficient Miltary Unit on the face of the earth.

3) Lowering of current Military admission standards to allow quota fulfillment.

4) Unprecedented financial (Tax) implications of supporting a military draft and its cojoined social/community service alternative (draft deferment option).

5) Conscientious Objective Deferals for those who opppose fighting in Wars.

These are some of the REAL issues and consequences relative to Rangles proposal. They are not moot.
Woa, I just had a deja vu :)

1) Forcibily removing Mothers and Fathers between the ages of 18 and 42 from a family structure.

2) Diluting the strongest and most efficient Miltary Unit on the face of the earth.

3) Lowering of current Military admission standards to allow quota fulfillment.

4) Unprecedented financial (Tax) implications of supporting a military draft and its cojoined social/community service alternative (draft deferment option).

5) Conscientious Objective Deferals for those who opppose fighting in Wars.
Well, I don't believe he's ever called for any of that. Rangel's bill isn't even for a "military" draft alone, but also to draft people into public service that will aid us in the War on Terror. For many this could mean nothing more than some part time work instead of watching 8 hours of mindless football on Sundays ;)

Have you even read his Bill?

-spence

Woa, I just had a deja vu :)

Well, I don't believe he's ever called for any of that. Rangel's bill isn't even for a "military" draft, but rather to draft people into public service that will aid us in the War on Terror. For many this could mean nothing more than some part time work instead of watching 8 hours of mindless football on Sundays ;)

Have you even read his Bill?

-spence

Wow, Even after reading the bill I was left with the clear impression it called for a Miltary Draft. :wall:

Lots of poor caucasians in this country

Wow, Even after reading the bill I was left with the clear impression it called for a Miltary Draft. :wall:
Reread my post, I corrected it after rereading it and realizing it was worded poorly.

8 minutes before you responded ;)

-spence

Lots of poor caucasians in this country

Wow, thanks.

So back to the point...is the burden of fighting for the American way of life being equally shared among those who enjoy it?

Should it?

-spence

I think that when people are thinking about the education level of the Mlitary they are falling victim to an Out-dated perception. 30-40 years ago the military was an avenue for people who didn't have the grades for College or any direction, as of yet, in there lives. Still is to some extent. I know that when I joined it was to basically do something with my life. and when I joined they were just starting to implement standards for enlistment. They were looking at things like High-school Graduate or not, or if you had a clean police record.

and as time progressed it actually became tougher to get into the military than ever before. Also as technology started to come to the Fore front the need for more Trained and Educated personnel came into play so the Military had to change its standards.

So back to the point...is the burden of fighting for the American way of life being equally shared among those who enjoy it?

Should it?

-spence


Its tough having the average guy answer this. If I answered from my personal observations the answer is yes. Every soldier I know or am familiar with through friends and family here in Boston are all well educated and career driven middle class people. They come from all walks of life be it public servants, politicians teachers etc. All with high school diplomas at a minimum, most with college and some with post grad degrees.

This is beacuse it is a cross-section of my personal and social circles. We can all relay stories about our opinions based on our experiences.

The problem is answering the question on a national level, for that we must rely on statistics. Unfortunately, as we all know we could spend a couple of days here posting links

http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/wm922.cfm

trying to nail down the exact socio-economic make-up of the greatest fighting force in the history of the world.

"Should it?" ..... I may have to take a stab at this later. Off to court.:walk:

You guys kill me :rotfl: The pubs have been stroking the same cat for years now and with a change in name only you`re blaming the dems for what you claimed the pubs were doing all along... tickle me pink :btu:

I'll give this one last shot. What you seem to be saying is Republicans are now blaming Democrats for things Republicans were claiming they themselves do. If that is your point I'm left with only one word..........What?

Wow, thanks.


You`re welcome and I`ll see you in court :usd:

Many words do not a point make said someone.

I'll give this one last shot. What you seem to be saying is Republicans are now blaming Democrats for things Republicans were claiming they themselves do. If that is your point I'm left with only one word..........What?

Hard up?


I do not believe you only have one word. My idea was that the Dems just got some measure of control....just..... and the finger pointing is growing before they can even make an attempt to turn things around which will take some time. One has an idea or special project and its all them dems want this or that..... special interests are not all encompassing no matter their outward appearing politics.

You`re welcome and I`ll see you in court :usd:

Many words do not a point make said someone.


I was just kidding Mike.:tooth: I read all those long posts then hit yours and kinda laughed. All in good fun!:wave:

Me to my S-B friend :chatter

The best of holidays for you and yours :love:

If I answered from my personal observations the answer is yes.
I think that's the rub, obviously with more service members coming from the south and west...you will have communities that are impacted more and more. But even in RI every so often there's bad news...

But this isn't just a military demographic question. Given the desire to keep the consumer driven economy pumping does the average person really think about Americans overseas while they clammer through a Wal-Mart parking lot at 5am to score some Black Friday goods?

According to experts this war will cost well north of a trillion dollars over this decade while the income gap widens nationally and the National Debt mounts. We all know who can better afford to pay taxes without impacting quality of life.

So it would seem that the military is leaning on poorer communities for recruitment while the Federal Government is leaning on the middle class taxpayer to foot the bill.

Again, this is about the ability to shoulder the "burden" for their policy.

Agree or not 100% I do think Rangel is bringing up a very thoughtful point.

-spence

The top 10% of wage earners pay 90% of the taxes. So the government would be leaning on the upper-upper class to foot this bill.

The top 10% of wage earners pay 90% of the taxes.

Where did you get that stat? Gotta see that one for myself.

The top 10% of wage earners pay 90% of the taxes. So the government would be leaning on the upper-upper class to foot this bill.
Well, first off that's not true. The top 10% pay more like 65% of the taxes and the current trend is shifting the burden to the lower tax brackets.

But that's not even the real issue, it's our progressive tax system that has allowed the middle class to exist for so long fueling the American dream. Wealth redistrubtion is as American as baseball and apple pie.

More and more fiscal conservatives are looking at taxes in relation to the entire Federal budget, and what this means for the future of our Country...

I'll let Ben Stein explain:

Put simply, the rich pay a lot of taxes as a total percentage of taxes collected, but they don’t pay a lot of taxes as a percentage of what they can afford to pay, or as a percentage of what the government needs to close the deficit gap.

SOURCE: NY Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/26/business/yourmoney/26every.html?_r=1&ref=business&oref=slogin)

It's a good short piece, I'd read the entire thing.

-spence

Lets say your 10% and 65% numbers are correct. How then can you cay that the middle class is taking the brunt of the cost of the war? The wealthiest are taking the biggest hit. Care to discuss how much the lower third pay in taxes?

That NYT quote is unnerving. "what they can afford to pay".

That NYT quote is unnerving. "what they can afford to pay".[/QUOTE]

You are so right. :yak:

I agree slapshot, we should not be taxed on what we can afford to pay.
The "upper" class of today is not old money, but people that work 80+ hours a week.
How many vacation days do you think Bill Gates takes? I'd bet none, I am certain that he spends 12+ hours a day on Msoft business.

Lets say your 10% and 65% numbers are correct. How then can you cay that the middle class is taking the brunt of the cost of the war? The wealthiest are taking the biggest hit. Care to discuss how much the lower third pay in taxes?
Because the rich can better afford it...it's that simple...Read the article. Remember, this isn't about being "fair" rather it's about fiscal balance and that any time anyone brings the subject up they are accused of "class warfare".

That NYT quote is unnerving. "what they can afford to pay".
Actually the article is quoting Ben Stein and Warren E. Buffett! Not exactly two liberal thinkers.

-spence

The line "what they can afford to pay" is the author's "creative writing" and not a quote from Stein or Mr. Berkshire Hathaway.

The line "what they can afford to pay" is the author's "creative writing" and not a quote from Stein or Mr. Berkshire Hathaway.
ATTENTION - ATTENTION - ATTENTION

"Ben Stein" is the author writing about Warren Buffett! :humpty:

-spence

You caught me, I wasn't paying attention to a NYT article. Not sure I'd wipe my rear with that rag anyway.

More to the point, I find it hard to believe that Buffet would be willing to pay "what he can afford".

More to the point, I find it hard to believe that Buffet would be willing to pay "what he can afford".

So he's just telling a lie so Stein can write a nice story?

It turned out that Mr. Buffett, with immense income from dividends and capital gains, paid far, far less as a fraction of his income than the secretaries or the clerks or anyone else in his office. Further, in conversation it came up that Mr. Buffett doesn’t use any tax planning at all. He just pays as the Internal Revenue Code requires. “How can this be fair?” he asked of how little he pays relative to his employees. “How can this be right?”

-spence

Warren Buffet spends a tremendous amount of money. In fact he just donated most of his personel worth to Bill and Melinda Gate's foundation. That was a sizeable amount of change. So Buffet certainly isn't cheap and is willing to spend his dough. By the way, Stein and Buffet, as individuals, doesn't that combination strike anyone as odd?

By the way, Stein and Buffet, as individuals, doesn't that combination strike anyone as odd?
No, please explain?

-spence

Spence it difficult to overcome Steins comedic travails and switch to his financial astuteness (sic). I am sure he is wealthy but I have trouble listening to what he says when the only thing I relate to while listening to or reading him is the show, "Take Ben Stein's Money". He certainly isn't in BUFFET'S category. Berkshire Hathaway is probably the most successful investment companies in the world. Besides what I have allready said I doubt many people other than Mrs. Stein pay much attention to Ben Steins advice.

Beuller, Beuller.......Beuller

(OK You knew Somebody was going to do that)

He seems to have enough street cred to keep people's attention. Given that his comedic persona is pretty annoying, I don't think he'd get far if there wasn't something to offer.

-spence

Win Ben Stein's Money was a hilarious show, it had Jimmy Kimmel.
I miss it.

I think I am going to look into his educational background and see where his financial prowess comes from.

Grad. Columbia 1966 BA economics
Yale Law School 1970
A trial lawyer in the trade regulations and worked as a poverty lawyer, which I sure if Richard Nixon knew that never would have hired him as a speech writer.

His bio goes on and on..........

Columbia, Yale Law?

He was probably only there on a lacrosse scholarship :smokin:

-spence

More like Bagmitton!