Guiliani's sounding better and better. In a recent speech he said:
"Democrats are kind of falling over each other seeing who can raise taxes faster," Giuliani said. "It looks like they're going to raise taxes anywhere between 20 to 30 percent. John Edwards just said he's going to raise the capital gains tax double that. Last time we did that, we lost 40 percent in revenue. The last time we did what John Edwards is discussing, the United States lost revenue by basically discouraging people from making investments."

Last week, Giuliani called the Democrats the "party of losers" and singled out Edwards and Democratic Sen. Barack Obama for criticism on economics and foreign policy.

Giuliani argued that he favors less government and lower taxes.

"That's what makes America great, not this nanny government that Democrats want to give us, where government controls your entire life," he said.

On Tuesday, Giuliani intends to outline his health care plan. Giuliani's goal is to give individuals more control over health care decisions and to encourage state officials to come up with innovative solutions.

Key to his plan is a $15,000 tax deduction for families to buy private health insurance, instead of getting insurance through employers. Any leftover funds could be rolled over year-to-year for medical expenses, under Giuliani's plan.

"That cash allows you to go out and buy cheaper and cheaper policies; you can have higher and higher deductibles," Giuliani said earlier this month in Cedar Rapids, Iowa.

He compared private health plans to plasma TVs, saying the plans would come down in cost as demand grows. http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070730/D8QN4AHO0.html
Tough on terror, favors lower taxes, favors private health care (as opposed to socialized medicine like the Democrats), a record of competent leadership, and he can speak coherently!

Except investments in start-ups are tax deductable. He's a lier.

G is a dead duck. Watch him bow out by September.

I don't know if he's smart enough to bow out. But I'm not particularly worried about Giuliani. It's not like he actually has any credibility left. The myth of the 9/11 Mayor Hero is over.

favors private health care (as opposed to socialized medicine like the Democrats), His 15,000 dollar tax break is just a tax cut for rich people - they're already buying health insurance.

And since when is the ability to buy high deductible insurance a great benefit, or something that we don't already have?

The idea that medical care is a manufactured good - that its price goes down with economies of scale and surplus in production and market choice - is ludicrous. Handing rich people another 15,000 to spend on medical would drive the prices up, not down - more money chasing the same services already being delivered. The medical care that benefits most from economy of scale in delivery is public health measures like vaccinations and screenings - socialist stuff.

Private health care is essentially no medical care at all for most people, very expensive care for the rest, and a further erosion of the public health and wellbeing. Greater personal control over medical care puts even more expensive and critical decisions in the hands of people both uninformed and probably incapacitated to some extent.

Feh. He's just parroting righty boilerplate.

I don't know if he's smart enough to bow out. But I'm not particularly worried about Giuliani. It's not like he actually has any credibility left. The myth of the 9/11 Mayor Hero is over.
In the shallow end of your tide pool.

Many of us are evolved.

We know oceans fringed by tide pools.

Haven't you learned yet, G? Misanthropy is a terrible color on you, or anyone else.

Haven't you learned yet, G? Misanthropy is a terrible color on you, or anyone else.
You choose an interesting metaphor to describe the natural act of intestinal evacuation to the same effect.

Your nuance gene is really recessive. :D

His 15,000 dollar tax break is just a tax cut for rich people - they're already buying health insurance.

And since when is the ability to buy high deductible insurance a great benefit, or something that we don't already have?
As a self employed father of four, I spend about $12,000/year on health insurance. I'd love to have a $15,000 tax break. And as a heath care provider, I'd hate to see the government take over health care.

I already accept Medicare (the government run health insurance for the elderly) and it's a real pain in the ass. I'm considering not taking it anymore. I'd hate for all my patients to be in that kind of plan.

Perhaps they should work on fixing what is wrong with medicare.
I could get behind a candidate that has a real plan for that.

Guiliani: Democrats party of losers

What's new?

Ask any true Republican. Guliani is a Democrat in Republicans clothing.

1)He's for Gun Control

2) Federal funded abortions

3) Gay rights

Sounds like a RINO to me.

Ask any true Republican. Guliani is a Democrat in Republicans clothing.

1)He's for Gun Control

2) Federal funded abortions

3) Gay rights

Sounds like a RINO to me.

None of that has ANYTHING to do with being Republican!

Guiliani's sounding better and better. In a recent speech he said:

Tough on terror, favors lower taxes, favors private health care (as opposed to socialized medicine like the Democrats), a record of competent leadership, and he can speak coherently!

I think private healthcare in that form, is stupid. If it's private then employers should pay. If it's public then the state should pay, but healthcare is a national security issue. If we don't protect the health of our citizens, a plague could destroy the entire country.

Don't you people know European history?

None of that has ANYTHING to do with being Republican!

Gun control by it's very nature is very anti libertarian.

The phrase "Gun control" has control in it. It's not about protecting anyone, or safety, it's about politicians and the government trying to control who gets the guns. And it never works, because the people who always seem to get the guns, seem to be the least qualified to get it.

Gun control, is like crowd control, though control, career control, wealth control, or just in general, life control. So libertarians basically don't want the government to control their lives. Democrats want the government to control their lives.

A lot of Bush Republicans are not libertarian Republicans or even conservative. They want Bush and the corporations to control their lives. They want Bush as CEO of a global corporation, and they want to be an employee of America corp.

I personally, do not favor either of these outlooks. But it seems, no matter which party you vote for, both parties desire centralized power, in the hands of a few individuals, or maybe even just one individual.

I favor a more decentralized shared power, very much like how the constitution describes, but if that mechanism is not acceptable, then I'm a populist who will support either party when it's in my best interest to do so.

I'm not for gun control, I am for universal healthcare. I'm not for higher taxes but I am for universal college education. I'm not for big centralized government, but I am for small decentralized government and non government organizations.

The point is, I fear the government as much as I fear the corporation, because I know government can be and is being run exactly like a corporation at this time. So what difference does it make? The corporations control the government and run the government as a sort of mega corporation.

So basically, it's the same structure either way, and not much changes. I do admit, there are certain things Democrats do better. Democrats seem to actually be better at running the government, but Democrats are very inefficient, and don't seem to be thinking long term.

It does not make much sense why Democrats always fund the wars, and Republicans always launch them. Clinton was great for the economy, created a surplus, so that Bush could spend it, and give it to the top 1%. Result? The top 1% stole the surplus.

Then we look at the constitution, which is so weak now it's on life support. Democrats seem to have no ideas on how to improve government, and Republicans are busy fighting the war.

What difference does it make? No matter who you vote for, government is going to get bigger, civil liberties will be decreased, and the government or the corporation will control our lives. Let's face it, American's just aren't libertarian enough to value freedom. Americans value security only, to the point where Americans are willing to enslave themselves to secure themselves. Kinda silly, but that what seems to be happening.

Politics are about power and control. The Democrats want power and control over you, and the Republicans want power and control over you, and the real battle is over the ideology and methology, not the fact that one of these political entities will have power and control over you. So who do you want to control you life? Thats what you vote for.

Ask any true Republican. Guliani is a Democrat in Republicans clothing.

1)He's for Gun Control

2) Federal funded abortions

3) Gay rights

Sounds like a RINO to me.

Why are Republicans against abortion? I don't understand the point of that. Bush Republicans don't seem to value human life anymore than Democrats do.

And the silly arguement by Bush Republicans that abortion is wrong makes no sense, because if thats the case, isn't torture wrong too? Isn't it wrong to launch and fight wars in this way?

Wrong is always wrong unless Bush says it's right? Is that it?

As a self employed father of four, I spend about $12,000/year on health insurance. I'd love to have a $15,000 tax break. Of course you would. Anyone who can afford 12,000 a year in health insurance could probably benefit by a 15,000 tax break. Tax breaks for the well-off are W&Co's specialty - in fact, the sole accomplishment of this adminstration (aside from emlarging the role of the federal government in several areas, but that is properly accounted as means, not accomplishment).

Unless, like a good bookkeeper, you set the borrowed monies against them - then they don't exist any more. And W&Co have no accomplishments.

Giuliani is talking about privatising something in which there is little hope of setting up a market. It makes about as much sense as privatising highways.

Gun control by it's very nature is very anti libertarian.Agreed. I also am strongly against gun control.

I am for universal healthcare. I'm not for higher taxes but I am for universal college education. I'm not for big centralized government, but I am for small decentralized government and non government organizations.
Ok, you can't get a giant government healthcare program without giant increases in taxes and giving up a lot of freedom. Once the government controls healthcare, it controls a good portion of your life.

As the one paying the piper, government will be in great position to call the tune.
The point is, I fear the government as much as I fear the corporation, because I know government can be and is being run exactly like a corporation at this time. So what difference does it make? The corporations control the government and run the government as a sort of mega corporation.I don't think you're as libertarian as you think. There's a big difference between the government and corporations.

Corporations have power, but nothing like the power of government.

The government can jail you, it can put you to death, it can seize all your assets, it can ship you off to Guantanamo Bay.

Corporations can do none of this. Government is the real threat to individual liberty. Corporations only inasmuch as they work hand in hand with government.
I do admit, there are certain things Democrats do better. Democrats seem to actually be better at running the government
If you're thinking of the Clinton presidency, don't forget he had a Republican Congress. The Republican Congress under Newt kicked ass. Without it. Clinton never would have balanced the budget.

It may be that divided government is needed because when one party controls the presidency and the legislature, no one is really keeping an eye on things. Unfortunately, I really don't trust the Democrats at all.
Democrats seem to have no ideas on how to improve government, and Republicans are busy fighting the war.Despite the Democrat desire to wish it away, we are at war. When Democrats talk of pulling out troops immediately and damn the consequences, they expose their childlike naivette. Hillary had it right when she nailed Obama on foriegn policy.

What difference does it make? No matter who you vote for, government is going to get bigger, civil liberties will be decreased, and the government or the corporation will control our lives. It sure seems that way sometimes.
Let's face it, American's just aren't libertarian enough to value freedom. Americans value security only, to the point where Americans are willing to enslave themselves to secure themselves. Kinda silly, but that what seems to be happening.
We are at war. At war with people who disguise themselves as civilians to kill as many of us as they can. We will have to temporarily give up some freedoms to defeate these bastards. We gave up far more during the civil war and WW2 and everything went back to normal afterwards.
Politics are about power and control. So who do you want to control you life? Thats what you vote for.
I want no one to control my life. I vote for the person I think will move things in the right direction or at least more slowly in the wrong direction.

This time around, Guiliani is by far the best candidate. There is no freedom without security, and I trust Guiliani more than any Democrat on defense. Economic freedom is important to anyone who calls themself a libertarian. Every Democratic candidate is calling for a dramatic increase in taxes. Finally, Giuliani has the best chance of all the Republicans of winning.

Guiliani...isn't that the guy who didn't protect the city from 911?
huh? what? were are republicans now?

Guiliani...isn't that the guy who didn't protect the city from 911?
huh? what? were are republicans now?
He didn't protect the city from highjacked airplanes smashing into buildings? What should he have done, installed anti-aircraft missiles on all the buildings?

He didn't protect the city from highjacked airplanes smashing into buildings? What should he have done, installed anti-aircraft missiles on all the buildings?

"Up-to-date S-400 anti-aircraft missile systems to defend Moscow's air space"

http://english.pravda.ru/russia/19-08-2004/6604-missile-0

I am from Russia. :cool:

We will have to temporarily give up some freedoms to defeate these bastards. We gave up far more during the civil war and WW2 and everything went back to normal afterwards. We did not. And waht we did give up did not go back to normal - the draft, for example, was still with us long after WWII. The Pentagon became a permanent fixture. The McCarthy era kicked in. The various intelligence agencies did not go away, and started spying on Americans. The CIA developed its own foreign policy and interests. etc.

And there will be no afterwards. Terrorism is a tactic and a crime - it will not go away in our lives. What you give up in some sort of magical ritual to protect yourself from terrorism, you will never get back - the new way will be your way of life.

Yeah, my life has changed so much since 9/11...

Yeah, my life has changed so much since 9/11...

I am 1.5 miles from WTC. go figure.

I was being factitious. I can't think of one thing (other than longer lines at airports) that has changed for me...

We did not. And waht we did give up did not go back to normal - the draft, for example, was still with us long after WWII. The Pentagon became a permanent fixture. The McCarthy era kicked in. The various intelligence agencies did not go away, and started spying on Americans. The CIA developed its own foreign policy and interests. etc.

And there will be no afterwards. Terrorism is a tactic and a crime - it will not go away in our lives. What you give up in some sort of magical ritual to protect yourself from terrorism, you will never get back - the new way will be your way of life.Look at the civil war. Lincoln suspended the writ of habeus corpus. Or WW2 when we rounded up all the Japanese. And the draft? That's long gone. The other things you mentioned were needed to fight the cold war.

And while terrorism is a tactic that will always be around, Islamofascism is not.

And frankly, I haven't noted many changes either. What changes there have been are no big deal.

I don't mind at all if the government monitors international calls. I'd be pissed off if they didn't. The increased wait at airports is annoying, especially since I doubt it is making any difference anyway. The passengers will prevent any future hijacking.

But monitoring of international electronic communications really can help and should be done. Fuck that FISA bullshit. So long as the info gained isn't used for anything but counterterrorism, go for it.

So long as the info gained isn't used for anything but counterterrorism, go for it.

And do you honestly trust that?
With a Federal Government as large, unweildy and secretive as ours, who is going to guarantee that?
When someone with the right amount of power deems something "for our own good", who's to know and question?
With the powers of the Executive Branch spreading constantly, what happens to the checks and balances?

They generally get checked and balanced. Most of the things that people on this web site constantly whine about, so far as the Bush administration is concerned, have been or are being challenged in court or investigated by Congress. The rest have been outed by the Media, which is slowly but surely forcing Bush to reassess some of his policies...

And do you honestly trust that?
With a Federal Government as large, unweildy and secretive as ours, who is going to guarantee that?
When someone with the right amount of power deems something "for our own good", who's to know and question?
With the powers of the Executive Branch spreading constantly, what happens to the checks and balances?I don't trust the government either. But they need this power to fight terrorism. Show me a case of it being abused, and I'll back impeachment or prison for whoever did it.

[madanthonywayne;


Ok, you can't get a giant government healthcare program without giant increases in taxes and giving up a lot of freedom. Once the government controls healthcare, it controls a good portion of your life.

Maybe we libertarians should call this, "Government-Controlled healthcare" or "Health control". Maybe this will wake up people who favor having the government control which doctors they can see, which medicines they are allowed to purchase, etc etc.

As the one paying the piper, government will be in great position to call the tune.
I don't think you're as libertarian as you think. There's a big difference between the government and corporations.

Corporations are only better because they are more decentralized. I'm a libertarian as in, I support maximization of liberty, and choice. I don't think freedom should be completely unlimited, but more that we should be free to do whatever we want as long as we aren't harming anyone else, or society as a whole.


Corporations have power, but nothing like the power of government.

Corporate power is political power. I don't think you understand the nature of todays multi-national mega corporations. If you are a libertarian, you might be against the government being too centralized and having too much power but you also have to be concerned about corporate mergers centralizing corporate power in the same way.


The government can jail you, it can put you to death, it can seize all your assets, it can ship you off to Guantanamo Bay.

Corporations can control the government. Everyone knows we have a government of puppets by now.


Corporations can do none of this. Government is the real threat to individual liberty. Corporations only inasmuch as they work hand in hand with government.

I'm not an anti-government libertarian, I'm simply a pro liberty, left-libertarian. Government is not the problem, or the solution, it's just an entity, and it must be managed like other entities, and the only way to manage government is through corporations, because thats how the current system is set up.

Corporations can merge and become more powerful than the government. OPEC is a perfect example of this, as OPEC is powerful enough to control the foreign policy, and many members in congress.


If you're thinking of the Clinton presidency, don't forget he had a Republican Congress. The Republican Congress under Newt kicked ass. Without it. Clinton never would have balanced the budget.

I don't know what Clinton would have done under a Democratic congress, but I'm sure it would have been no worse than what Bush has done with a Republican congress.


It may be that divided government is needed because when one party controls the presidency and the legislature, no one is really keeping an eye on things. Unfortunately, I really don't trust the Democrats at all.

Politicians are not a trustworthy bunch generally. They have corporate masters. What you don't seem to understand is, the politician is a puppet of the corporate forces that control him or her, and set the policies. So you cannot blame Clinton for passing NAFTA, he had no choice. He had to pass NAFTA or it would have been the end of the Democratic party. Clinton was good for the Democratic party, and for the middle class, but not so good for organized labor, and the working class, but then again Republicans do the same sorta thing, both Republicans and Democrats are very much corporate servants.


Despite the Democrat desire to wish it away, we are at war. When Democrats talk of pulling out troops immediately and damn the consequences, they expose their childlike naivette. Hillary had it right when she nailed Obama on foriegn policy.

I disagree. I think the war is no longer worth the costs and expense. If we could not secure 12 trillion worth of Iraqs oil in 5 years+ years of war, it's reaching the point where it's costing trillions to fight it, thousands of lives, and at the same time costing us civil liberties at home. We are at a point now, where we can either fight a never ending war with the middle east that will balloon into a world war that can last a generation, or we can pull out. I say we pull out because it's more cost efficient to pull out now and forget about fighting for oil in the middle east.

But of course, certain business interests would disagree with that.


It sure seems that way sometimes.
We are at war. At war with people who disguise themselves as civilians to kill as many of us as they can. We will have to temporarily give up some freedoms to defeate these bastards. We gave up far more during the civil war and WW2 and everything went back to normal afterwards.

I'm not a Bush libertarian and I'm not a Bush Republican. I'm loyal to America, not Bush.


I want no one to control my life. I vote for the person I think will move things in the right direction or at least more slowly in the wrong direction.

Who do Republicans have worth voting for right now?


This time around, Guiliani is by far the best candidate. There is no freedom without security, and I trust Guiliani more than any Democrat on defense.

Guiliani is a good man, and he's trustworthy on defense. You are also right, that there is no freedom without security, but I don't think this war as it's taking shape now, is about security. If it's about security, why are we in Iraq? Why haven't we caught Bin Laden by now? We cannot increase our security while we declare war on the entire middle east! We need to use diplomacy, and I think Democrats are better at diplomacy than Republicans.

Economic freedom is important to anyone who calls themself a libertarian. Every Democratic candidate is calling for a dramatic increase in taxes. Finally, Giuliani has the best chance of all the Republicans of winning.

I agree, economic freedom is essential to liberty, and I don't support tax increases on the masses. I do think we need some taxes, but I think the taxes should be based on behaviors of individuals. If an individual is responsible, and a model citizen, they should not have to pay high taxes, but if an individual actually harms society, then they should pay high taxes.

A pollution tax is something I agree with because it's a national security concern. Pollution is bad for society, and for everyone in it, and the government should be focused on national security. We should solve the healthcare problem, because thats also a security issue. We should solve crime because thats also a national security issue.

I do not think we should have an income tax. If we need to tax people more, we should individualize it so people who are irresponsible pay higher taxes. If you want to smoke, sure, cigs can be taxed, I'm libertarian but I'm not someone who thinks we should have no taxes at all, I just think we should have a better tax system that actually rewards people for staying out of trouble and being a good citizen instead of punishing everyone with oppressive taxes, like the property tax, or the income tax.

Idea's like the negative income tax, or using grants to reward good behavior and taxes to punish bad behavior are the sorta ideas I support. I support taxes as a way of creating a better society and a better citizen, I don't see taxes as something that should be used to just punish every man and woman for no reason.

Here is an example of how Democrats shoot themselves in the foot, taxing their own base, and weakening their political party.

BET founder blasts ‘class war’ on tax
By Jessica Holzer
July 31, 2007
Democratic presidential hopefuls are “playing the class warfare card” by supporting tax increases on private-equity and hedge-fund managers, says Robert L. Johnson, the billionaire founder of Black Entertainment Television, who warns the hike would hit minority-run investment firms.

“I believe there’s a tendency of certain members of the Democratic Party to pursue tax changes as part of some soak-the-rich strategy without thinking about the longer-term consequences to the overall economy,” Johnson told The Hill.

Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) and Barack Obama (Ill.) and former Sen. John Edwards (N.C.), the leading contenders for the Democratic presidential nomination, have all come out in favor of the tax hike, which would treat “carried interest” as income. The proposed change has been seen by many as affecting only Wall Street’s super rich, but
Johnson said it would have wider consequences.

Johnson told The Hill that it would make it tougher to lure minority talent from the top investment banks, creating more barriers for minority-run firms to compete: “Investors are skeptical already about the ability of minorities to manage funds and, if you don’t have the best and the brightest, you’re going to be in worse shape.”

He added that minority-run firms pour crucial capital into blighted areas “where many of the bigger funds don’t want to go because they don’t want to navigate the landscape or the relationships.”

An established Democratic donor who launched two investment funds after selling his television network for billions, Johnson is urging minority private-equity managers to lobby members of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) to oppose the measure, which would raise the tax on private-equity managers’ carried interest from the capital gains rate of 15 percent to ordinary income rates as high as 35 percent.

Johnson has shared his concerns with Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.), the Ways and Means panel chairman, who is the sponsor of the legislation, along with Rep. Sandy Levin (D-Mich.). He said he also plans to meet with Ways and Means member Stephanie Tubbs Jones (D-Ohio) and Rep. James Clyburn (D-S.C.), the Democratic whip.

Johnson’s campaign isn’t limited to black lawmakers or Democrats. On Thursday, he met Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.), a Republican leadership member who is leading the charge against the legislation in the House. “I’ll meet with anybody if they happen to be supportive of an issue I’m concerned about,” Johnson said, citing his collaboration with Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) on pushing for an end to the estate tax.

Other minority fund managers are raising their concerns about the proposal on Capitol Hill. Craig Huffman, a black man whose firm invests in real estate in neglected areas of Chicago, has flown twice to lobby members of Congress on the issue, meeting with Levin, Rep. Jim McCrery (R-La.), the Ways and Means ranking member, and tax staffers for Sens. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Richard Durbin (D-Ill.), the Senate Majority Leader and Whip, among others.

Huffman’s firm, which he started six years ago and now employs four people, has poured all $25 million of its capital into $100 million worth of real estate in neglected Chicago neighborhoods. “Our story, I think, has shocked a lot of congressmen and senators because they haven’t talked to a guy like me,” he said.

Huffman reflected that minorities were “just now getting into the game” while the tax rules have been in place for a number of years. He said he has urged lawmakers who are concerned about the equity of the tax system to consider measures that won’t affect fledgling entrepreneurs like himself: “If your goal is to go after the wealthy, then just do that.”

Levin said he had a “really useful conversation” with Huffman but insisted his proposal wouldn’t reduce incentives for investment in economically depressed areas and that, in any case, such concerns should be addressed apart from legislation to reduce inequities in the tax code.

“We’re not changing the tax rates on investment. It’s not going to affect the [tax] credits on investment that are available for underserved areas. If we need more credits, we should deal with them specifically,” Levin said.

On Friday, a handful of CBC members on the Ways and Means and Financial Services committees met with three black fund managers as well as a representative from the National Association of Investment Managers, a trade group that advocates investment in minority-run businesses.

Rep. Greg Meeks (D-N.Y.), a member of the centrist New Democrat Coalition who is known for taking a pro-business stance on many issues, set up the meeting. Although he has yet to take a stance on the tax proposal, Meeks said he is leading an effort to educate fellow CBC members on the “unintended consequences” of the proposal on minority fund managers.

“We want to make sure that the rich pay their fair share of taxes but I also want to make sure there isn’t a barrier to entry for minority-owned firms,” he said. He added that he intended to set up a meeting with minority fund managers and the whole CBC. He also said that he has urged Rangel to include a minority fund manager as a witness in hearings that the chairman has said he will hold on the issue of “tax fairness.”

This is not the first time that black entrepreneurs have sided with Republicans on a tax issue. In 2001, a group of black business leaders led by Johnson took out ads in The Washington Post and The New York Times calling for a phase-out of the estate tax. The ads said that abolishing the tax would help close the wealth gap between black and white families.

Cantor welcomed Johnson’s support in his fight against the tax proposal, saying he agreed the proposal would hurt minority-run firms. “It demonstrates again that this measure doesn’t just target the Wall Street investment class,” he said.
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/bet-founder-blasts-class-war-on-tax-2007-07-31.html

So we can see from that example, that just taxing wildly and recklessly, is stupid. You should not tax people who are trying to get rich so they can make others in your base rich, that will only doom the Democratic party itself into being the party of the poor, and only reinforce the idea that Republicans are the party of the rich.

Why would anyone successful choose to be a part of a party, that wants to punish success, even when that success is helping the community and helping the Democratic party? I think it's utterly stupid to tax by class. I think it's better to tax by behavior, because not all rich people are bad people, some rich people are actually trying to help the community, or create jobs for Americans, or just make a life for themselves.

Now, you have other rich people who are polluting the environment, and holding back progress. If Democrats were wise, they'd stop taxing their base, which is also rich people, and start taxing the people who actually do harm to society. Democrats just don't have an acceptable tax policy, and I'd prefer they adopt a tax policy that were more libertarian, that taxed for a purpose other than to just increase revenues for the government.

If Democrats want to tax corporate mergers, I'd support that, if Democrats want to tax corporations convicted of criminal activity, I'd support that, but if Democrats just want to tax everyone beyond a certain income, won't that make people who are beyond that income support the Republicans?

I'm not rich, I'm actually poor, but I know there are rich people who should not be taxed into poverty. It's just not a good strategy politically.

He didn't protect the city from highjacked airplanes smashing into buildings? What should he have done, installed anti-aircraft missiles on all the buildings?
He should have asked Democrats to volunteer to adorn the outsides of the towers as human shields.

Yeah, I know...