Bravo to John F. Kerry for proposing a positive message on the economy:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...BUGGF7788G1.DTL

We don't need more tax cuts for the rich.
We need to reduce the deficit.
And we need health care benefits for all American citizens, something all other civilized western countries offer their citizens.

If this is any example of how John Kerry will be conducting his economic policy, America is in for more shame than under Clinton.

Kerry Took Money From Arrested Figure
Jun 20, 4:20 PM (ET)

By JOHN SOLOMON and SHARON THEIMER

WASHINGTON (AP) - John Kerry's campaign collected a maximum $2,000 check from the recently arrested son of South Korea's disgraced former president, and some of its fund-raisers met several times with a South Korean government official who was trying to organize a Korean-American political group.

The Kerry campaign said it did not know about the $2,000 donation from Chun Jae-yong or his background until informed by The Associated Press and has decided to return the money to avoid any appearance of impropriety.

"We are sending the check back," spokesman Michael Meehan said.
South Korean government officials told the AP that a top official in its Los Angeles consulate office returned home last month amid "speculation" he had engaged in Democratic politics, but they do not believe any laws were broken.

Chun Jae-yong was arrested in February by South Korean authorities on charges of evading taxes on $14 million in inheritance money. His father, former president Chun Dooh-hwan, was convicted in 1997 on bribery charges.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040620/D83AV36G0.html

This all sounds great, if you wish to peddle the Collectivist Socialist idea of getting even with the producers of the society.

First of all, 'the rich' should be further defined. If you are using this to mean those who already have their riches either through inheritance, or marriage, then raising taxes are to your benefit, since the laws cannot touch you now. However, those who are working hard and smart, and working up the ladder, are at a disadvantage, and are not welcome to the Rockafellers, Kennedys, etc. And guess what party they belong to?

While we are at it, if we are going to restrict the Liberties of the real producers of wealth in this country, why don't we also tax their First Amendment rights as well. After all, they don't need to be able to speak as freely as we lessor classes do. And so forth, and so on. After all, when you take away the property of some, then it is easy to take away other liberties as well. Who cares about incentives to other aspiring people. Who cares about equality when we can impose egalitarianism.

And why not impose government control of the health care industry. As the saying goes, "if you think health care is expensive now, just wait until it is free". Anything the government controls, becomes less efficient, costs more, and presents less for all to have available. Of course with the Collectivists and Kooks, it's the intention, not the results, that count most. Results be damned!

And of course raising taxes will get more revenue, at least in the minds of the Collectivists. And who cares about personal property rights? After all, we are only going to 'stick it' to less than 5% of the electorate. They don't have enough votes to stop us. So, we can demonize them, pit one social group against another, and then we can win control of the government.

This is classic Collectivist dogma. Divide and conquer. Always wax poetic about how we care for the little guy, punish the productive, gain control of the steering wheel, and then do what we will. And if we get all the wealth and power, why we are the annointed ones who are smart enough to lead you lesser classes. Does this sound familiar?

Oh, and if you get tired of our control, and wish to overthrow us by elections, well, we can always declare Martial law, or something else that will ensure our continued control.

Long Live the Collective! We collect and enjoy; you provide us with other's goodies. And 'we' will live happily ever after. Only a KOOK or nitwit would go for something like that. But then again, there are just enough people who might believe such bilge and filth!

That philosophy does have a little tinge of pink to it, doesn't it.

I agree with John L. "Rich" needs to be defined better. For example, the Ford Family still controls 50% of Ford Motor Co. How is this possible given a 50% inheritance tax? Money that was generated during the rise of the Kennedy's and the like was taxed differently, and the laws were different. Carnigie obtained much of his wealth through insider trading, which is now illegal. Kennedy obtained much of his wealth through illegal trading in alcohol, and not the rubbing kind, which was not taxed at all.

It galls me when working stiffs are defined as rich. They are people who build a business, hire people, and then can not pass it onto their kin because of taxes. Go after the old money first, and then come to the working stiffs. One Kennedy in government stated he had never worked a day in his life. Hypocracy abounds.

The Kerry tax plan proposes to bring taxes to the Clinton era levels for those earning over 200K per year. That level is rich by most peoples standards. It is governments job to define tax bracket levels and the specifics will always be under debate.

Regarding health care, a recent poll I read stated that the vast majority of Canadians (and ALL Canadian citizens are covered by their national health care program) favor the continuation of this government entitlement and would not favor an American system, in which we have at least 44 MILLION uninsured people.

John L. AS USUAL, KOOK that he is, raises a whole bunch of RED HERRING issues that I am not talking about, that John Kerry is not talking about, that really only exist in his own rarified Sephardic brain.

Well LOL thai. The difference between you and me is that I have a nice sense of "you know what", and your words help me laugh. Plus, none of the accusations are factual anyway, so no one will believe you either. HAA HAA!

Come on, give the principles of Liberty a chance for once, and seriously give up the class envy thing. You will feel better about the world, and maybe about yourself. LOL!

"The Kerry tax plan proposes to bring taxes to the Clinton era levels for those earning over 200K per year. That level is rich by most peoples standards."-T

The 200k level is not rich. It is called comfortable. I would be a little generous and put the level at least 1million and estate taxes over 10million. At these Clinton levels, you penalize those who are trying to work their way up, and are usually working their butts off. Taxing 1M estates at 50% is rediculous. Furthermore, many times people have one good income year, so they should be able to average over many years.

As I said the definition of rich is always subject to political definition.
Sorry, but 200K USD per year is considered rich by the overwhelming majority of Americans. Do you doubt that? If so, you are mistaken.
The Clinton tax rates levels were not historically high.
The Bush tax rates are radically low. If you are looking for evidence of that, look at the historically high budget deficits.
Clinton presided over the best American economy in history AND he balanced the budget.
Bring back Clintonomics!

Granted, unlike what some say, his tax hike was NOT the greatest hike in history, this century, or what ever. It was moderate, in nature, but it still tended to slow down the recovery to less than what it could have been.



Tax rates and budget deficits are not directly linked as you would suggest. It is the SPENDING by Congress that mostly determines the deficit. Further, lowering taxes to a point will get more tax revenues after the initial lag time. Any time you make something less expensive, you get more of it. Unless, of course, you live in a Collectivist haze. Only a Collectivist would actually pay twice as much for something at Dillards, rather than pay half for it at WalMart!



That over simplistic statement tells much about the complexity of your thinking. You conveniently leave out the earlier reduction in taxes during the Reagan years, the peace dividend following the demise of the Soviet Union, AND the sudden loss of Congress to those Horrible Republicans. Let's see, they came into power in January, 1995, and a several of years later, the economy just magically balanced.

One thing that you have to give Bubba credit for, is that he listened to Rubin and kept his hands out of the running of the economy. He realized that if it wasn't broken, don't try to fix it. Now there is where he deserves credit. If that is what you mean by Clintonomics, then I am for it!

[SIZE=7][COLOR=blue][FONT=Times][FONT=Times] I know that my 401k was better than than now, I know that we didnt have the world think we condone torture. I know that there used to be a bid process an not just award multi-billion dollar contracts, I know that PRESIDENT CLINTON signed the use of the v.a. to prior veterans, I know that President Bush is a smoke screen artist, Prime example would be the no child left behind, then under fund it,
yep, give me Clinton anytime
But have a good day anyway

Same to you partner. I think that your post is a bit simplistic, but we can pick it apart at a late time. Anyway, welcome aboard.

Please, use logic and links with your posts, not like some other Leftists here. Chech out C.Woww as an example, ok?