Yes, I understand that you support decreasing public spending, but my point is that doing that isn't so easy as saying it. I think we'd have to cut our spending more than in half to accomodate a 20% flat tax rate. Which programs will we cut? Cutting our taxes that much is the most complex and difficult part of your proposal: it isn't so simple as saying "We should cut taxes."

But again, even if we could cut taxes so much that everyone could have only a 20% tax rate, I'd still say it's a good idea for the middle class to pay maybe 15%, while the wealthy pay 25%, or something along those lines.

So which programs should we cut in order to accomodate the flat tax? Welfare? Police? Child abuse agencies? The FDA? The military?

I disagree with most of what you said here.

First, the people who have the money are almost never producers. Let me use myself as an example: I am a producer. I sit at a computer and create computer software all day. I do most of the software design. The product strategist at our company evaluates the market and figures out what sort of product would be good to create. She then relays that information to me. There is also a tester, who tests the stuff I create, and there are sales people who sell it. We are all very good at our jobs, and we all get above-average wages for our jobs in the industry. But none of us are wealthy.

The wealthy people in our company know little more about our products than the names. They don't produce things, they simply decide corporate "direction" and give the company "diversity training" and that sort of thing. They don't produce a thing. The only reason they have any claim over the money our products make is because they paid us to create that project. You see, my software development team couldn't afford to create this software ourselves and try to market it. The only way we could afford to make it is if a very wealthy person pays us to create it.

Most wealthy people produce nothing, and most wealthy people are no smarter than anyone else. Though some wealthy people may be "using what they've been given", I'd say that most people who use what they've been given end up completely poor. I've been given a strong ability to program software, but if I want to be rich, I'll need to use something else.

Most of the time, that which seperates the wealthy from the poor is that the wealthy were born wealthy. Sure, investing a lot of time and money into a business is a risk, but most of the time, they have that money to invest. And make no mistake about it, if I had that sort of money, I would attempt to start up a business as well. I don't mean that no one ever goes from middle-class to wealthy, but that is not what happened for the majority of wealthy people today.

So what is it that makes the wealthy more deserving of money? They don't generally produce a thing. They aren't generally smarter. And whether you're "using what you're given" plays little part in whether you become wealthy. But what if the wealthy were smarter, and what if they were "using what they were given"? Does that make them more deserving of wealthy than someone else who works hard? Does it make them more deserving of wealth than someone who is kind and generous? It does not.

Capitalism distributes wealth in a fashion which encourages people to produce. That is the only criteria it uses for distributing wealth. Capitalism doesn't say, "This person deserves wealth, so he gets it." It says, "Giving this person wealth encourages people to produce, so he gets it."

Let's look at my job again as an example. The software I create generates something like ten million dollars a year. The fair way of distributing the wealth this software generates might be to give everyone involved an equal share, which would give me something like a million dollars a year. A different method might be to distribute wealth based on involvement in the project, which would give me something like two million dollars a year. The most fair method might simply be to forget the concept of "property" all together and say that anyone can use the product I created, and I can use the products anyone else created, so long as they aren't already in use. But each of these methods goes against the principles of capitalism: the first violates the concept of contracts, and the second violates the concept of property. Each of these methods of distributing wealth, though fair, do not encourage production.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with having money. But capitalism does not distribute money fairly. You say that "no one is entitled to a rich person's money", but I say that the rich person was not entitled to more money in the first place. You say "just because someone is poor" as though the workings of fate just happened to give the poor person less than the wealthy person.

That's not what happened: the poor person is poor because we insituted capitalism. That poor person might well be working two jobs at minimum wage and doing a darn good job of it, but even though he's likely working harder than a company CEO, he's getting practically no money for it. The poor person is poor because of capitalism, and the middle class person is middle class because of capitalism.

We, the government, instituted this economic system because we think it is the best economic system. But it is still our responsibility to recognize the downsides of this system and correct them as much as possible. One of the downsides is that a small minority of the people will control most of the wealth in the nation. It is our responsibility to correct that as much as possible.

Why wouldn't they? He was implying that they are dependant on Public schools for votes...

I agree. The typical sine wave historically, is that Republicans come in Office, and spend like crazy and build the Military... Then the Democrats come into Office and balance the budget, and get the country more stable, so the next batch of Republicans can come in an build the military. The distressing part is that they both INCREASE the size of government, despite the fact that Republicans boast the desire to shrink it.

Bump, because this thread is very interesting, but I am way too tired to respond coherently right now.

Having a strong military is the correct thing to do. I firmly believe in peace through strength because history proves it works. The one thing these republicans today need to do more of is shrink the pet programs of theirs and the democrats also need to do that, but I think the dems have many more groups to answer to for votes than the republicans. I also don't really agree with Bush's giving federal money to religious charity organizations. Federal money comes with strings. The pork needs to be trimmed drastically on both sides.

Are you kidding? History tells us quite the contrary. Violence only breeds violence. Haven't you ever heard of a man named Mahatma Gandhi? Non violence resistence is more powerful than any Army, or any weapon; and he demonstrated that. I'm against the Israeli occupation and systematic take over of the West Bank, but I'm also strictly against the terror tactics used by some Palestinians. They need to understand that non-violence will set them free.

Peace through violence only works in the most extreme of circumstances. Probably the only area where you can accurately proclaim that military intervention could bring good instead of more bad, would be Darfur; even though that could potentially be just as dangerous, because then you would get the rebels wanting you on your side and the government wanting you on theirs; and both groups are guilty of crimes against humanity (although it mostly comes from the Government and the Janjaweed.

The Iraq War has taught us this lesson that we should have already learned in Korea and Vietnam. Terror groups are larger than ever, and more of them are mad at the United States. Our security has been jeapardized. Rogue states feel more inclined to flux their muscles and have more room to push around others because they know the US military is already stretched thin in Iraq and Afghanistan. While we fight them over there, our government has systematically ignored securing our borders and ports, and they continue to leave certain high interest locations unguarded (like stockpiles, power plants, etc.).

And this war against Lebanon is only going to make it worse. The first invasion and occupation didn't do anything, but only breed (and even manifest) certain groups like Hezbollah. Now Israel, instead of working with the Lebanese government in securing their southern border, they have launched an attack mostly directed at Lebanese civilians and infustructure because they claim that they needed to be punished for not securing the southern border. Okay, they didn't secure it, but this move against Lebanon will only breed more recruits for Hezbollah, and only polarize the region even more. There only needs to be a spark to light the powder keg.

Now I agree that we do need a strong military for our security. But we can't go around using that as a world police where ever we feel like it. I think that militarism and violence are outdated, and need to be eradicated; but until then it is necissary we have a strong military and brave men and women that are willing to put their lives on the line. Speak softly and carry a big stick.

Ghandi didn't end WWII. Overwhelming force ended it. You poor naive thing.

Wow. Ain't that the truth!

Actually overwhelming force didn't end it; but of coarse you continue to show your ignorance toward history. Brilliance, valour, and a hint of luck won WWII. It would probably serve you quite well to know that we almost lost WWII, on both fronts. Also it would also help to know that I said in the most extreme circumstances, intervention can be a good thing. But then of coarse you don't actually read my posts, you just cherry pick.

Of coarse not to say WWII was intervention; because by all means it wasn't. War was declared upon us. We didn't intervene. I think the point I'm trying to reach is that strength can win wars and battles, but it will never bring peace in the long run. According to your philosophy, we should have used our military strength to "intervene" in the Soviet Union. Because you know war is peace.

"There is no glory in battle worth the blood it costs."
Dwight D. Eisenhower

"War settles nothing."
Dwight D. Eisenhower

Oh, but of coarse, I guess Eisenhower, the Superme Allied Commander in Europe, is a "poor naive thing". And Alias is the all-knowing wise man of this world.

Yeah, you're absolutely right. It was the peace activist and anti-war demonstrators who won WWII.