In reply to this comment by deedub81:
You bring up a lot of good points. I think you just raised the sophistication of my attitude towards this discussion.

That's pretty high praise right there.

It's good to see someone else who's had a taste of both sides of life -- almost all the people I know have had all of one and none of the other.

I don't really disagree with you about people whose net worth is in the $1-$5 million range. They probably do live in middle-class neighborhoods, live in middle-class homes, and still shop in Wal-Mart.

Difference is, they're also not likely to lose their house, their car, or their credit rating if someone in their family gets a serious illness or loses their job (or God forbid, both), nor do they have to scrimp and save to put their 2.5 kids through college. They probably live in an area with a good public school, or can afford private school.

Their opportunities are greater, and their likelihood of slipping out of their situation due to a random event is dramatically less. They have income or savings to fall back on.

I agree that there are many countries with great programs funded by the government. I just wouldn't want to live there. I don't want to pay higher taxes. I want the freedom to spend my money how I see fit. Let me give you an example: I donate a substantial portion of my income to non-profit organizations every year, almost 12% in 2007. I hand picked where I wanted to donate based on my personal research and opinions. Some of my donations go to assist the poor. 100% of my donated money goes straight to where it's needed because it's handled by unpaid volunteers, not salaried government workers and politicians.

I don't pay very much for my health care because I don't need much. I maintain a policy for emergency health care, and I pay my doctor in cash when I get an ear ache.

Tell me how my lifestyle (and the life of the families that benefit from my donations) would improve if my money was paid in taxes rather than donations?

That's a core conservative argument. In your viewpoint, you earned your money in a vacuum, and owe nothing to anyone (except the people you borrowed money from). You want to donate some of your money, but you want it to be your sole choice where it goes.

In my viewpoint, you've used public roads all your life, benefited from the USDA keeping food safe, national parks, public schooling, the safety provided by police, the fire department, the FBI, the CIA, and the armed services. You will one day be a beneficiary of Social Security, and have been a beneficiary of farm subsidies if you've ever bought bread or milk.

We're all part of a collaborative enterprise here in America, and each of us have a duty to it. We're lucky in this country, all they expect us to do is pay taxes, and possibly serve on a jury. Nothing else is compulsory. In other countries, military service is mandatory for a certain period of time.

Now, you can complain that the government doesn't use your money wisely in all circumstances, but that's the fault of the voters. We have a responsibility to use our votes to force real accountability in government. If you want your tax money to go towards or away from something, vote your mind. If you're passionate about it, talk other people into seeing things as you do.

Arguments that "government" doesn't have the right to collect and disburse tax money strike me as essentially anti-democratic. While I like to have an open mind about such things, you're going to need a better replacement than "those who have, rule" if you want anything less than full opposition from me.

Even Lincoln said that we have a "government of the people, by the people, for the people", which to me implies that it is (or was) a collaborative effort for the common good. Once we establish that, we're just talking about who how to distribute the tax burden amongst the citizens. Should we ask the poor to pay the same portion of their income Bill Gates pays, or should we ask more from those who have more, and less from those who have less?

That's not punishing success, it's just saying that those who have succeeded have a greater responsibility to support our common good than those who haven't.

You're still free to give money to charity in addition to paying your share to the government, and if you don't have enough left over afterwards, you're free to go find ways to get more income. If higher tax rates are really a big disincentive, I'm sure your boss would be happy to give you a paycut if you asked for one, but I think most people will just try to keep earning more, no matter what.

Oh, and as for how Republicans are taking your money and giving it to corporations? By not lowering your taxes, while lowering your benefits, and increasing the benefits to Exxon, Pfizer, Bear Stearns, and Lockheed Martin.

To quickly touch on your other points, I think McCain's life was pretty cushy up to the point where he shipped off to Vietnam, and resumed the cushiness when he married Cindy Hensley. He was the son of 2 generations of Admirals, and graduated from officer's school, after his service he dumped his wife and married into money, and she funded his run for political office. That was 30 years ago. I think he's had himself a pretty sweet life for most of that, and I think that kind of situation detaches people from reality (and being a Senator for 30 years could have the same effect).

As for what that has to do with how he'd do the job? How's he going to relate to my needs, when he doesn't even know how many houses he owns, can't remember the last time he pumped gas, and needs note cards to tell him the price of milk? Yes, that's a talking point, but I think it makes a pretty salient point about the kind of detachment from reality McCain has.

Obama's the kind of middle-class millionaire you were describing. He's only recently made it to millionaire status, largely through sales of his books, and that largely based on his run for President.

I disagree that we've already done enough with social programs such that the only people who go homeless or hungry are doing so by choice. If that were true, why would people choose to go hungry and live on the streets?

I live in a Republic, not a Democracy nor an Oligarchy. The Government should not get involved. The people should loose their house if they can not afford it. Others , ( the American people) should not have to pick up the slack because they were sold a load they can't afford. Also, Fanni Mea and Freddie Mac and Bear Stearns all should fall or bear the weight of their decisions, not the public.

If you dont know what a Republic, not a Democracy, Oligarchy is the you owe it to you self and your country to find out. Here is a link to a 30 minute clip. Watch it and learn.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6732659166933078950&q=overview+of+america+site%3Avideo.google.com&total=81&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&pli
ndex=0

If it does not work the go to google video and search " Overview of America "


You owe it to yourself.

The bailouts begin:

Bear Stearns, pushed to the brink of bankruptcy by what amounted to a run on the bank, agreed late Sunday to sell itself to JPMorgan Chase for a mere $2 a share, narrowly averting a collapse that threatened to cascade through the financial system.

The companies said that the Federal Reserve would provide special financing in connection with the transaction and that the Fed had agreed to fund up to $30 billion of Bear Stearns’s “less-liquid assets.”

Source - http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/16/business/16cnd-bear.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

Tags for this video have been changed from 'poetry, read by, Thomas Stearns Eliot' to 'poetry, read by, Thomas Stearns Eliot, Michael Gough' - edited by sbchapm

T.S. Eliot wrote the Four Quartets and Willem Dafoe reads one of them from the roof of 600 Broadway in NYC, produced by Robert Galinsky. Eliot made an indelible impression on me in high school, it's been a rhapsody on a windy night ever since.

The full set can be found at http://www.tristan.icom43.net/quartets/

Thomas Stearns Eliot, OM (September 26, 1888–January 4, 1965) was a poet, dramatist and literary critic, whose works, such as "The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock", The Waste Land, "The Hollow Men", and Four Quartets, are considered major achievements of twentieth century Modernist poetry. The winner of the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1948, he is one of the most influential poets of the 20th century. Although he was born an American, he moved to the United Kingdom in 1914 (at age 25) and was naturalised as a British subject in 1927 at age 39.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T._S._Eliot

I love all of Ron Fricke's movies and can't wait for <Ahref="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samsara_%282006_film%29">Samsara. Michael Stearns out did himself on Baraka.

This is from the movie Chronos by Ron Fricke. This is the same man who brought us Baraka and worked on Koyaanisqatsi.
Original music by Michael Stearns.

This is my favorite part of the critically acclaimed film Baraka by Ron Fricke, the cinematographer for Koyaanisqatsi.

In addition to making comparisons between natural and technological phenomena, such as in Koyaanisqatsi, Baraka searches for a universal cultural perspective: for instance, following a shot of an elaborate tattoo on a Japanese bather with one of Native Australian tribal paint.

The title Baraka is a word which means blessing in many different languages. The score provided by Brendan Perry and Lisa Gerrard (from Dead Can Dance) and Michael Stearns is noticeably different from the minimalist one provided by Philip Glass for Koyaanisqatsi. Notable music was also contributed by the band Brother.

I urge people to watch the film in it's entirety in the links provided here.