molson_golden2002

We are headed down the rabbit hole here. I used wealth on purpose. First off, you were not using my argument, you changed it from wealth to income. That is very important. Just because we have an income tax in America doesn't automaticlly mean it is a correct measure of who pays. Many wealthy individuals get out of paying an "income" based tax through stock options and other ways of getting paid. Lots of their taxes are also deferred. Wouldn't that be nice if we could defer payment on most of our income for 20 years or so? And btw, using the "income" tax as a gage excludes SS taxes, local taxes etc., that's very important, and its why Conservatives like to focus just on the income tax.

1) New Hampshire isn't the federal government with its massive financial obligations 2) I'll bet the proponents do say that. Now do you understand why they would have an interest in low balling the figure? 3) Black Market everything! How often does this happen today? Often! http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...4-2004Jun7.html Smugglers with ties to terrorist groups are acquiring millions of dollars from illegal cigarette sales and funneling the cash to organizations such as al Qaeda and Hezbollah, federal law enforcement officials say, prompting a nationwide crackdown on black market tobacco. The federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has more than 300 open cases of illicit cigarette trafficking -- including several with terrorist links -- up from only a handful five years ago, ATF sources said. "This is a major priority for us," said Michael Bouchard, assistant director of the ATF. "The deeper we dig into these cases, the more ties to terrorism we're discovering." The lucrative trafficking of cigarettes, known as cigarette diversion, is a simple scheme but difficult to stop, law enforcement officials say. The traffickers purchase a large volume of cigarettes in states where the tax is low, such as Virginia and North Carolina, transport them up Interstate 95 to states such as Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania and New Jersey and then sell them at a discount without paying the higher cigarette taxes in those states. And this is just one item. You want to do this with everything! What a disaster it would be! Very bad idea

Why would you post on this thread anyways? You just consider taxes to be theft, so what does it matter to you how they are collected...er...ah...stolen, I mean

To fund the entire federal budget off of consumption you think a sweater would only rise in price by $7? Come on. The drug dealer would be getting into all sorts of new business ventures. Who the hell would want top pay taxes when the black market could provide goods tax free. Your consuption tax would be a disaster and unenforcable, to boot. That yact you talked about, who's to say that to avoid taxes, they drop the price "officiually" and pay for half of it under the table? Hell, the way businesses work, if one guy did that, the rest would have to follow that lead.

I can't? Don't think everyone is as dumb as you, they aren't and I certaintly am not. First off, I find it amusing that the rich guy walks off with most of the savings but this isn't tax cuts for the rich. All while leaving the government iun debt because of this. BTW, my biggest problem with the tax cuts is not who gets them but that they only pile on more debt irresponsibly. But really think a simple model like that can explain our complicated tax syatem and who gets what? Who benefits the most from the government? This model has everyone getting the same amount of beer. That's silly. Dick Cheney--just as an example we all know about, not picking on anyone's hero Dick-- has $55 million he made from Haliburton off government contracts. Has he paid his fair share? And BTW, Halliburton has the gall to to off shore its operation so it doesn't pay taxes on its government contracts. Wow. That's just one example among many. Who gets the most off of building infrastructure and research and development? We all benefit from those investments but some get more than others, like the guy who gets rich off of government contracts building roads or the landowner who suddenly saw his land values increase because of government action.. That model also assumes we all pay on our proportion to pay. But do we? Is the tax system fair now? The rich have a much easier time avoiding taxes, defering taxes and out and out cheating on taxes. Plus, the own so much. The top 1% owns 33% of the wealth of the country. Shouldn't they pay 33% of ALL taxes? That's just the top 1%. The bottom 80% own just 15%. I'm not complaining at all about that at all, just saying that if you guys really think the taxes should be fair, wouldn't the people who own 85% of the wealth pay 85% of the taxes?

LOL, sorry charlie, but this consumption tax wouldn't work. Why, think about the drug dealer you mentioned there. What does he do now, and why would his business opportunities expand after a consumption tax was started. BTW, if I pay $50 now for a sweater how much will I have to pay after the consumption tax is introduced? Just a guess, please

Facts? Only on boneheaded idiot would consider this moronic parable, that BTW is falsely attributed to an economics professor, a "fact." I wish I had the time to go over everything that's wrong with this, but I don't.

Comments welcome and appreciated http://fairuse.100webcustomers.com/fairenough/bost61.html Militias on rise in Iraq Burst of splinter groups stiffens challenge for US By Farah Stockman and Bryan Bender, Globe Staff | January 31, 2007 WASHINGTON -- The messianic Soldiers of Heaven militia that fought US and Iraqi troops in one of the fiercest battles of the war Sunday is among the more than two dozen extremist militias operating across Iraq that are fast becoming a powerful, and hidden, new enemy. US officials this week expressed concern about the explosion of splinter groups in Iraq, noting that their sheer number makes a political resolution to the ongoing violence in Iraq increasingly difficult. One Defense Department official said in an interview yesterday that the military is tracking at least 28 militias, many of them Shi'ite splinter groups, but knows little about their leadership or command structure. Paul Pillar , who served as the CIA's chief intelligence analyst for the Middle East before leaving in 2005 for a teaching position, said the number of groups continues to expand almost daily. "It is very difficult to get a handle on all of the contours of the current situation in Iraq," he said. "This is a civil war on top of an insurgency on top of other conflicts. There is no one simple split between side A and side B. There are numerous subgroups and splinter groups that make it difficult to say any one leader is in charge of those who come under one label." The weekend battle against the heavily armed Soldiers of Heaven killed at least 200 people, according to the Iraqi Defense Ministry. The intensity of the battle, and the sophistication of the group's weapons, surprised US and Iraqi forces. Several US military and diplomatic officials said they had never heard of the group. The battle underscored the divisions that exist in Iraq, not just between Sunni Muslims and Shi'ite Muslims, but within the dominant Shi'ite community. Some of the groups are even more extreme in their views than the powerful Shi'ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, who has been considered one of the more radical figures in Iraqi politics. "The whole idea of a monolithic, unified Shi'ite community is profoundly wrong, and any calculation that uses that assumption will get into trouble," said Reidar Visser, a historian of southern Iraq who edits the Iraq-focused website, historiae.org . "There is a belief that by inviting one or two select leaders to Washington, you may gain the confidence of the entire Shi'ite community, but that is not realistic." Visser added that while Americans have had interactions with a few of the lesser-known groups, "they hardly have any contacts at all with a large majority." The Shi'ite splinter groups illustrate the extent to which the US enemies in Iraq have multiplied, from Sunni insurgents who were the prime focus of the war in 2003 and 2004 to the Shi'ite militias affiliated with powerful political parties that emerged in late 2005 and 2006 to today's obscure religious militias such as the Soldiers of Heaven, which was so heavily armed that it was able to down a US helicopter. "It's symptomatic of the current chaos that prevails, that small groups can emerge and become large" forces, said Joost Hiltermann , an analyst for International Crisis Group , which is based in Jordan. Most press reports suggest that members of Soldiers of Heaven were followers of Ahmad bin al-Hassan, also referred to in some reports as Ahmad al-Hassaani , a prominent Shi'ite in Basra who said he was in direct communication with the Madhi, a messiah-like figure in Shi'ite Islam. But an early report from the Arabic-language daily Al Hayat stated that the followers were led by the radical cleric Mahmud al-Hassani al-Sarkhi , who is considered even more anti-American than his former ally, Sadr. Sarkhi broke with Sadr when Sadr chose to field candidates for the new Iraqi Parliament. Sarkhi's name first appeared in the Western press this summer when his supporters burned the Iranian Consulate in Basra and replaced its flag with an Iraqi flag. After Sunday's battle against the Soldiers of Heaven, specialists on Iraq cited another group as a possible combatant: the Fadila party, led by cleric Muhammad al-Yaqubi, who has his own militia. Yaqubi studied under Sadr's father, but is now Sadr's rival. The Shi'ite bloc of political parties that controls Parliament has downplayed divisions among Shi'ites. But more than a dozen Shi'ite factions command their own armed followings in southern Iraq, including two competing groups that both call themselves "Hezbollah," a family-run private army of the Garamsha tribe and armed fighters loyal to the Prince of the Marshes, an autocratic leader of Iraq's marsh Arabs, said Juan Cole , a Shi'ite specialist and University of Michigan professor. Another little-known group, Usbat Al-Huda, or Daughter of Guidance, identifies itself as a group of female fighters loyal to Sadr who are willing to carry out suicide attacks. Cole said that even the grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani , a moderate Shi'ite cleric, controls a team of tribal bodyguards similar to a militia that calls itself Ansar Sistani. "There are a lot of these groups," Cole said. "Shi'ite Islam is hard to get one's mind around. . . . It's not a hierarchy like Roman Catholicism. There is nothing to prevent someone from striking off in their own direction." In addition to armed Shi'ite factions in the south are Sunni groups that form the backbone of the insurgency in Anbar Province, as well as extremist Islamic militias operating in Kurdistan. "It goes without saying that the universe of insurgent groups in Iraq is both dynamic and fluid," according to a recent analysis by the government-funded Rand Corp. "Groups appear, change, merge, divide, and disappear, operate under different names and sometimes under no name at all." The 2006 Rand study, prepared under a contract with the Air Force, counted 28 different groups that had formed since the US-led invasion and acknowledged that there were probably many others. A Defense Department official yesterday confirmed that the government is tracking at least 28 groups, many of them Shi'ite. Intelligence officials also are drafting a new National Intelligence Estimate assessing all the known groups that could threaten Iraq's security. Officials said they hoped to deliver the report to President Bush and Congress in the coming weeks. The Iraqi Constitution prohibits the formation of militias. Iraq's government officially recognized seven militia groups linked to mainstream political parties, with the proviso that they disarm and join the political process. Yet, the universe of rogue forces has only expanded, as more obscure groups compete for loyalty and power in cities and towns. "Despite these legal and political prohibitions, militias and other small, armed groups operate openly, often with popular support, but outside formal public security structures," said a Pentagon report on the security situation delivered to Congress in late 2006. "Controlling and eventually eliminating militias is essential to meeting Iraq's near- and long-term security requirements."

Hey cupcake, in case you didn't know, we don't live in Venezuela. It's not as important as Bush f'n up. Is that easy enough to understand?

David Brooks of the New York Times this past sunday: During the summer of 1995, Edward Joseph was serving as a U.N. peacekeeper in Bosnia. He was asked to help Muslim women and children flee from an area near Srebrenica, where 7,000 Muslims had already been slaughtered by Serb forces. It was a controversial mission. The U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees refused to participate, believing the evacuation would just complete the ethnic cleansing. But the high commissioner didn’t see the crowds of Muslim women shrieking in terror as Serb jeeps rolled by. Joseph did. It might seem high-minded to preach ethnic reconciliation from afar, Joseph now says, but in a civil war, when you can’t protect people, it’s immoral to leave them to be killed. Gradually, leaders on all sides of the Bosnian fight came to see it was in their interest to separate their peoples. And once the ethnic groups were given sanctuary, it became possible to negotiate a peace that was imperfect, but which was better than the reverberating splashes of blood. Today, many of the people active in Bosnia believe they have a model that could help stabilize Iraq. They acknowledge the many differences between the two places, but Iraq, they note, is a disintegrating nation. Ethnic cleansing is dividing Baghdad, millions are moving, thousands are dying and the future looks horrific. The best answer, then, is soft partition: create a central government with a few key powers; reinforce strong regional governments; separate the sectarian groups as much as possible. In practice, that means, first, modifying the Iraqi Constitution. As Joe Biden points out, the Constitution already goes a long way toward decentralizing power. It gives the provinces the power to have their own security services, to send ambassadors to foreign countries, to join together to form regions. Decentralization is not an American imposition, it’s an Iraqi idea. But, he adds, so far the Constitution doesn’t yet have legislation that would do things like equitably share oil and gas revenue. The Sunnis will never be content with a strip of sand unless they’re constitutionally guaranteed 20 percent of the nation’s wealth. The second step is getting implicit consent from all sects that separation and federalism are in their interest. The Shiites would have to accept that there never will be a stable Iraq if the Sunnis are reduced to helot status. The Kurds would have to accept that peace and stability are worth territorial compromise in Kirkuk. The Sunnis would have to accept that they’re never going to run Iraq again, and having a strong Sunni region is better than living under a Shiite jackboot. As Les Gelb says, unless the thirst for vengeance has driven the leaders in Iraq beyond the realm of reason, it should be possible to persuade them to see where their best interests lie. The third step in a soft partition would be the relocation of peoples. This would mean using U.S. or Iraqi troops to shepherd people who want to flee toward areas where they feel safe. It would mean providing humanitarian assistance so they can get back on their feet. As Edward Joseph and Michael O’Hanlon note, in this kind of operation, timing is everything. Move people in a certain neighborhood too early, and militias could perceive a vacuum and accelerate the violence. Move too late and you could be moving corpses. The fourth step is getting Iraq’s neighbors to buy into the arrangement. Presumably neither Iran nor Saudi Arabia really relishes complete chaos in Iraq and a proxy war with each other after the U.S. withdraws. The Turks would have to be reassured that this plan means no independent Kurdistan will ever come into being. The most serious objection to soft partition is that the Sunni and Shiite populations are too intermingled in Baghdad and elsewhere to really separate. This objection, sadly, becomes less of a problem every day. But it would still be necessary to maintain peacekeepers in the mixed neighborhoods, be open to creative sovereignty structures, and hope that the detoxification of the situation nationally might reduce violence where diverse groups touch. In short, logic, circumstances and politics are leading inexorably toward soft partition. The Bush administration has been slow to recognize its virtues because it is too dependent on the Green Zone Iraqis. The Iraqis talk about national unity but their behavior suggests they want decentralization. Sooner or later, everybody will settle on this sensible policy, having exhausted all the alternatives. More Articles in Opinion »

And he might be our next President

Why doesn't he blame the "decider" who fired the general who told him he would need more troops? http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/na...1&cset=true McCain assails top U.S. commander in Iraq By Julian E. Barnes, Times Staff Writer 8:53 AM PST, February 1, 2007 WASHINGTON -- John McCain, the leading Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, today took to task Gen. George Casey, the top American commander in Iraq, accusing him of being the architect of a failed strategy, and failing to take the correct steps to improve the security situation. Casey, nominated to become the next Army chief of staff, faced a series of tough questions from McCain and other senators. The general found himself trying to navigate through a committee of senators with wildly different opinions of the troop increase in Iraq. It was McCain, the leading advocate in the Senate of increasing the number of troops in Iraq, who had the toughest questions for Casey. He accused Casey of failing to adapt his strategy as the sectarian violence grew worse over the course of 2006. "Our military strategy remained unchanged," McCain said. "Instead of mounting a traditional counter insurgency campaign our troops focused on training the Iraqis…our forces did not focus on protecting the population." Although he would have to provide the forces to support the mission, as Army chief of staff, Casey would have no direct influence over Iraq policy. Still, the majority of senators questions focused on Casey's leadership in Iraq and the new strategy announced by the White House. At the beginning of the hearing, McCain said he had questions about Casey's nomination. Quoting from Casey's press conferences, McCain said the general had regularly offered overly optimistic assessments of progress in Iraq. "Why have your predictions of success been so unrealistically rosy?" McCain asked. "You stated we were winning and every day we were making progress toward our strategic goals." While questioning Casey, McCain said that the new commanders in Iraq, the new defense secretary and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff had said the old strategy had failed. But Casey said that he did not agree with their assessments. "I do not believe the current policy has failed," Casey said. McCain appeared obviously frustrated with Casey's responses.

Oh, is it still 1993? I thought a few years had gone by. Actually the chances of us getting socialized medicine are increasing as more people are coming on board to the idea. Also, if Hillary is running against McCain, she does have a chance. Has McCain ever seen a war he didn't like? Remember he wanted to send in the ground forces to Kosovo in 1998. The country doesn't want another war and that will help miss tight lips. Hillary will say damn near little to nothing before the election. She will run the Bush 2000 campaign, basically. I'm not saying she will win but she will have a good chance to win.

Wow, that's funny! That's how I feel about you! Tough sh-- all around. Who knows, maybe you will grow up someday, but I doubt it

I really think that's great. I hope your studies helped out.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,249403,00.html You have to wonder what amazing evidence appeared to swing the investigation in this direction. My theory is...seeing how everyone has a theory on this thread, that the military was told to float the idea Iran did this first just to give the warmongers a charge. Oh, and another theory, Bush won't attack Iran. No, make that a prediction. No Iran attack. He just can't hit Iran with the oil situtaion the way it is. So why all the noise? To blame Iran for the faliure to develop a democracy or whatever. That's all. This is all a blame game now. Who lost Iraq? The media, the Democrats, Iran and Molson_Golden2002. Everyone but Bush

Actually he's sort of a moron. I have criticism of the original report on NBC of the troops, but this guy goes way too far. Why did he bring up Abu Gargib or the rapes? Was that necessary? He made it seem like they had lets us down. No, many of us understand that was an bad but not the norm. My cirticism is different. The only thing that the troops need to know is that we the people are the ultimate 'deciders,' not them and not Bush. I feel bad and sort of frustrated they take it personally we don't support the war, but that's tough sh-- I guess. They'll just have to live with it.

All governments lie. Are you familure with the Pat Tillman story?

Perhaps antiwar.com was more right than we knew! So much for killing "Bad Guys" http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle...icle2201103.ece US 'victory' against cult leader was 'massacre' By Patrick Cockburn in Baghdad Published: 31 January 2007 There are growing suspicions in Iraq that the official story of the battle outside Najaf between a messianic Iraqi cult and the Iraqi security forces supported by the US, in which 263 people were killed and 210 wounded, is a fabrication. The heavy casualties may be evidence of an unpremeditated massacre. A picture is beginning to emerge of a clash between an Iraqi Shia tribe on a pilgrimage to Najaf and an Iraqi army checkpoint that led the US to intervene with devastating effect. The involvement of Ahmed al-Hassani (also known as Abu Kamar), who believed himself to be the coming Mahdi, or Messiah, appears to have been accidental. The story emerging on independent Iraqi websites and in Arabic newspapers is entirely different from the government's account of the battle with the so-called "Soldiers of Heaven", planning a raid on Najaf to kill Shia religious leaders. The cult denied it was involved in the fighting, saying it was a peaceful movement. The incident reportedly began when a procession of 200 pilgrims was on its way, on foot, to celebrate Ashura in Najaf. They came from the Hawatim tribe, which lives between Najaf and Diwaniyah to the south, and arrived in the Zarga area, one mile from Najaf at about 6am on Sunday. Heading the procession was the chief of the tribe, Hajj Sa'ad Sa'ad Nayif al-Hatemi, and his wife driving in their 1982 Super Toyota sedan because they could not walk. When they reached an Iraqi army checkpoint it opened fire, killing Mr Hatemi, his wife and his driver, Jabar Ridha al-Hatemi. The tribe, fully armed because they were travelling at night, then assaulted the checkpoint to avenge their fallen chief. Members of another tribe called Khaza'il living in Zarga tried to stop the fighting but they themselves came under fire. Meanwhile, the soldiers and police at the checkpoint called up their commanders saying they were under attack from al-Qai'da with advanced weapons. Reinforcements poured into the area and surrounded the Hawatim tribe in the nearby orchards. The tribesmen tried - in vain - to get their attackers to cease fire.

About honor killings? Ya, that's real relevent.

Chuckle, ya *helping* the troops. More like helping the O'Reilly and Limbo bottom line. These total fuggin a-holes are milking the people's sympathies for the troops to make a buck. That is disgusting. And others have done a lot more. Like these people, and if you haven't sent in a donation, maybe you should. Or go blame someone for not reporting it or something Pavlov. Have a good day, I'm out http://community.qvc.com/thread.jspa?messa...64&tstart=0 $50 Million Rehabilitation Center for Military Amputees Opens God Bless the many individuals who donated their own money to get this center up and running. Particularly, radio & tv host Don Imus, and Rosie O'Donnell both of whom donated $300,000.00 each. Cher donated $250,000.00 as well. "Imus in the Morning" held their broadcast live from San Antonio this morning and it was really a special event. Speaking of Imus, he is also involved with many charities, including Autism Speaks. If you have an opportunity, The View is dedicating today's entire show to Autism. It's quite moving to watch, and heartbreaking for the parents of those kids. What courage they demonstrate every single day. Whatever one thinks of Rosie, Don Imus, whoever, politics aside- seeing what they're doing for our soldiers and our children is good enough for me. The article is below if you would like more information. God Bless, -LisaR. SAN ANTONIO Stars of entertainment and politics are helping to celebrate today's opening of a 50 (M) million-dollar high-tech rehabilitation center in San Antonio. The privately built, 60-thousand-square-foot Center for the Intrepid is near Brooke Army Medical Center in Fort Sam Houston. It'll let the Army to move its physical rehab program out of the hospital into its own facility. Senators John McCain and Hillary Rodham Clinton are participating in today's opening festivities. Among the entertainers scheduled to participate are Denzel Washington, John Mellancamp and Rosie O'Donnell. It was financed by the private, nonprofit Intrepid Fallen Heroes Fund and includes a rock-climbing wall, wave pool and a 360-degree virtual reality sphere. They'll help amputees and other severely wounded soldiers recover their balance and other basic skills. The center is designed to serve the growing number of soldiers who return from war as amputees or with severe burns.

Dude, do you ever back anything up with a link? Megga dittos!

Ah yes! Blame the messenger! These clowns are using the soldiers to sell their garbage, acting like it will halp the troops in some way, and you blame someone else. You are like Pavlov's dog.

So, has there been more money lost to corruption in the years of UN oil for food, or the shorter period of US occupation? http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0407/dailyUpdate.html A former senior advisor to the US-led Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA), which ran Iraq until the election of an interim Iraq government last January, says that the US government's refusal to prosecute US firms accused of corruption in Iraq is turning the country into a " free fraud zone." Newsweek reported earlier this week that Frank Willis compared Iraq to the "wild west," and that with only $4.1 billion of the $18.7 billion that the US government set aside for the reconstruction of Iraq having been spent, the lack of action on the part of the government means "the corruption will only get worse." More than US money is at stake. The administration has harshly criticized the United Nations over hundreds of millions stolen from the Oil-for-Food Program under Saddam [Hussein]. But the successor to Oil-for-Food created under the occupation, called the Development Fund for Iraq, could involve billions of potentially misused dollars.

LOL! You done run yourself up a stump, haven't you? Now you are saying its "entirely" possible. Hell, I agree with that, and have said so but you said more than that before. You argued that if they didn't do it they would be breaking with your silly historical paradigm, and you rolled your eyes: So what is it? 'Entirely possible' or did they buck your stupid historical/theoritical paradigm, which is very useless, btw? Please do tell us.