Tired_Old_Man

Pro-choice and pro-life are very often confused with pro-abortion and anti-abortion, but that is a huge mistake. Pro-choice and pro-life are very often confused with immoral and moral, and that is also a huge mistake. Jesus ministered to the poor more than any other group. Many of the Pro-life people, especially the most radical ones, believe in protecting the life of every fertilized embryo until it takes its first breath. Then if the mother can not afford to provide food and shelter, she "should take personal responsibility" for her offspring. Many people who are pro-life tell me that they have both sympathy and empathy for new mothers who can not afford to feed and give their babies a home and medical care, yet they vote for politicians who cut Medicaid and food-stamps, and force women (who need to take care of their children who are less than school age) to work for their welfare, but then don't provide any means of day-care. The so-called Christian Right does not act like Jesus in their treatment of the poor, whether the poor are adults or infants. Many of the Pro-life people also have no problems with executing people convicted of murder and many of them want other crimes added to the list of capital crimes. Even though in 1999, a group of graduate students doing a class project found 13 of 25 death-row inmates (at one prison) were innocent and then found and tracked down all of the 13 people who had actually committed the murders, many Pro-life people have told me that if those 13 people who had been on death-row would have been executed (wrongfully), it would have been a small price to pay in order to keep the death penalty. Many of the Pro-life people also have no problems with sending US military personal to drop bombs, launch missiles and invade other countries, even though that country had never attacked the USA, had no weapons to attack the USA and no means of delivering weapons to the USA (even if they had weapons). They will take for granted that the person in authority must be right and if he says it is ok to kill, then ok it is. Didn't the USA (and most of the civilized world) condemn Germany for that same blind faith in the authority of a man in the 1930's and 40's? Many of the Pro-life people also have problems with allowing medical research that will help people that are living and breathing. The 16 cell embryo which is so small that 1000's could fit on this *, seems to have more value than a man dying from Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's, diabetes or a myriad of other illnesses. Does life begin at conception? Is a sperm cell alive? If not, how does it swim to the unfertilized egg? "Does that life have any meaning?" is a more important question. If anyone thinks that every embryo has a soul, I question that person's judgment of God's intelligence. Would a God who is so powerful and knowing bother putting a soul into every embryo? Does anyone really believe when a fertility clinic harvests 20 eggs and then fertilizes them, that God puts 20 souls into that petri dish. I think God is a whole lot smarter than that. One can be pro-life and demand a strong defense, but one can not logical claim to be pro-life when they let babies starve, let innocent people die by execution, allow people to die of illness when medical science might be able to save them and also accept anything less than 100% proof that we need to fight a war. Pro-life is just a meaningless title when used in this total context. And being Pro-life is not any more moral than Pro-Choice if it means neglecting the poor, neglecting to make sure people accused of crimes are given fair trials, neglecting sick people and allowing needless wars to be fought, especially against countries 1/10 our size.

By the way, this debate is one reason why the Republicans keep winning. The pit the middle-class against the poor against the rich, while the really wealthy go quietly unnoticed. :faint:

I can not speak for anyone else, but I think that the problem is not with middle-class or even rich, what ever that is, but with the wealthy. I am talking about the less than 1% who own more than the other 99% combined. What is funny is that two of the people who epitomize the wealthy are speaking out and acting out against the system. Neither Bill Gates nor Warren Buffet are in favor of the elimination of the inheritance tax. Both are removing the inheritance tax problem from their situations by giving their money away to important causes. But many of the wealthy will leave their money to spoiled children who think it is their right to rule over others. Warren Buffet has said he has an obligation as a rich man to leave his children enough money so that they can do anything, but not enough that they will be able to do nothing. George W BuSh is the son of a president, the grandson of a senator and the great grandson of a rich man. The Rockefeller's and the Kennedy's and many other politicians are our leaders almost as if they were a monarchy. Same goes for William Ford who just stepped down from CEO of Ford. I guess his "Blue-Blood" acquired by being the great grandson of both Henry Ford and Harvey Firestone (founder of Firestone tires) was not enough to make him a leader of men. But, I bet he made many 100's of millions of dollars from the CEO's job although he was completely incompetent. Keeping the inheritance tax does not stop these dynasties, but it may help. Faybie, there is nothing wrong with wanting your kids to do well and I do not think that makes you the enemy, but it is the people who think because they are billionaires that they have a right to show us who's boss. Steve Forbes inherited his money and business from his hard working father, so he thinks he can buy the presidency and he proposes a flat tax to keep even more of the money. People like him are the enemy. Rich is only a word. Most CEO's of the Forbes 500 companies, make so much money, that if I hit the Florida Lottery twice a week for a whole year, I would still make less then a CEO. They make that money even when their companies are losing huge sums of money. Their retirement is more in a year than people like us make in 10 lifetimes of wok. If you could give each of your children one winning lottery ticket each (for separate dates, of course), I am sure you would be satisfied that they have a chance to succeed in life with that as a start. If they blow that money rather than invest it, the problem is them, not the system, but if you have instilled the values you have spoken of into them, one lottery is enough to start a rich life.

Ah the mysteries of my twisted mind. Maybe I should refer to him as uh. :faint:

Like I said, "when BuSh became president". He and his Republican congress have since raised the exclusion and it will continue to get higher and higher until it reaches infinity. I hope your parents can survive on the $3,000,000 that will be left after taxes. Of course I am being playful. I can see a few million being excluded, but should Bill Gates and Warren Buffet and all the other 400+ billionaires be able to leave their billions tax-free? Yes, I know that both Mr. Gates and Mr. Buffet are kind gentleman and will do many good things with their money before they die, so inheritance tax will not really be an issue with them, but there are many people in the multi-millionaire bracket who are not as benevolent as Gates and Buffet.

I never said anything about having a defense either strong or weak. I believe in a strong defense also, but what the USA has is a strong offense. As Orwell showed in "1984" the use of language is critical to the government to control the masses. Who could be against defending your own country? That is why BuSh claimed he was defending American when we used our offense to invade Iraq. That is why Hitler claimed he was defending Germany when they used their offense to invade Austria. Neither attack had anything to do with defense. Do a little research and you will find that the US Defense Department's budget is less than 2% for Defense. It is all Offense. We are still spending huge amounts of money on weapons to destroy the world. We used to have over 10,000 nuclear warheads. Carl Sagan's think-thank estimated that 150 nuclear warheads going off in one day would destroy the world. During the cold war, we had every possible target triple targeted (3 nuclear warheads per target). We couldn't find enough targets for all our nuclear weapons. Now, we are down to around 3,000 nuclear warheads which is still enough to destroy the world 20 times over even if nobody attacks or counter-attacks us. And what good are these weapons against Al-Quaida, or Hezbollah? Every time we try to build a new fast small fighter jet, we wind up putting every bell and whistle on it until it can barely get out of it's own way. Why do we need to spend more money than every other country in the world combined? Why can't the USA learn to cooperate with other countries? Why can't the USA become a member of the world court? Why can't US soldiers be commanded by officers of other NATO forces? Why, because we want to be rulers of the world. I do not hate the USA, but we must stop pushing everyone around. Countries bombed by the USA since WW11 China 1945-46 Korea 1950-53 China 1950-53 Guatemala 1954 Indonesia 1958 Cuba 1959-60 Guatemala 1960 Belgian Congo 1964 Guatemala 1964 Dominican Republic 1965-66 Peru 1965 Laos 1964-73 Vietnam 1961-73 Cambodia 1969-70 Guatemala 1967-69 Lebanon 1982-84 Grenada 1983-84 Libya 1986 El Salvador 1981-92 Nicaragua 1981-90 Libya 1986 Iran 1987-88 Libya 1989 Panama 1989-90 Iraq 1991to present Kuwait 1991 Somalia 1992-94 Croatia 1994 (of Serbs at Krajina) Bosnia 1995 Sudan 1998 Afghanistan 1998 Yugoslavia 1999 Afghanistan 2001-02 On another website my signature is "A CowBoy is Judged by his Deeds, Not the Color of His Hat". The USA can not keep doing bad things while saying, "We are the good guys so it is ok to do it in order to defeat the bad guys." Didn't the 1994 Republicans already pass term limits?

In big bold print it says: SEE TAXTION CHARTS @ ANY GOV WEBSITE. But instead of using government websites like the one I listed a few posts back, the article you posted was written by and all the linked sites were to The Heritage Foundation who's stated mission is to "formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense." A link to the Republican National Party's website would have been no less biased. Please do not think that I am saying you were biased. You have a right to be biased. I am biased. I am a Democrat. But the article, which I assume you cut and pasted into this thread is biased because its job is to convince people that conservative values are the right values. So when it states things as fact, I would venture a guess that many of the so-called facts are either opinions or cleverly worded but deceptive statements.

And worse yet. Someone has to pay the $3,500,000,000,000 back to the Social Security fund. Guess who? YOU

First let me make the unpopular statement that Americans are not over-taxed. In fact they are taxed at one of the lowest rates of all the industrialized countries in the world. What we are is over-militarized. The USA spends more money on its military than all the rest of the world combined. And that is not taking into account the tax money that goes to pay all the benefits paid to veterans and all the interest on the debt that would not have been run up if we had not tried to be the world's police force. We just don't get much for our tax dollars. At least people in other countries get medical care. We in the USA have the mentality of a farming society. We still have this idea of it should not be done by the government. But, we can not do for ourselves anymore, because we live in cities. We need Water delivered and food brought in to us as well as police and fire protection, roads built, etc. Now getting to dpingl's very interesting item. There is one major fault with it. It assumes that Medicare and Social Security are part of the budget. They were not part of the budget until one of our bright presidents decided he could borrow billions interest free from the surplus of the SS fund. And by combining the two on paper, the general fund and the SS fund, presidents could fool the public and give tax cuts instead of balancing the general fund, while simultaneously borrowing from the SS fund. According to latest budget, the USA will spend 9% of its 2.25 trillion dollar budget on debt interest. That is about $200,000,000,000 (200 billion dollars). The national debt according to the US treasury is 5 trillion dollars plus 3.5 trillion dollars owed Social security or 8.5 trillion dollars total. http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpdodt.htm With treasury notes paying 4%, that would account for the 200 billion interest on the 5 trillion. If they started paying for Social Security's loan, that would be another 140 billion dollars. If the Republicans really want to solve the Social Security financial situation, then they should pass a law to pay interest on the $3,500,000,000,000 (3.5 trillion) that the Federal government has borrowed from the SS fund. The Federal government can give the SS fund $3,500,000,000,000 of Treasury notes to cover the debt. Of course, then the Republicans would have to raise taxes to cover the $140,000,000,000 in interest each year on the $3,500,000,000,000. Now for the other question. Who has to pay this interest? Yes, the US public. Why is that fair? Who elected the jerks who raided the SS Fund? Who ran away from the facts that the SS fund was being raided? The US tax paying public who still believes in a "free lunch". They benefited. Now it is time to pay the piper.

Let's face facts, well actually they are my opinions, if I asked anyone but the "True Believers" if they would believe that in 2006 America: Phone calls are being tapped with no court orders or probable cause People are being arrested without charges People are being arrested without recourse to legal aid People are being arrested without their family being notified Houses are being searched without notification to the dwellers of that house Torture, not whether, but how much should be allowed is the topic de jour They would have said that I was reading too much political fiction

Actually, I should apologize for being sarcastic. I should have said, "Are you leaving Pearl Harbor out for a reason?" :embarassed:

It seems to have done remarkably well for our politicians. :faint:

I am not a teacher, but I was an maintenance instructor for one of the USA's largest airlines for three years. Testing has little to do with real world achievements or abilities. Much of the testing that we see today has more to do with destroying the public school system than insuring children will be educated. It is a way of grading teachers by looking at the failures of parents. Good nutrition and good sleeping habits have more to do with a child's success in school and then in post-school life than the ability to learn how to pass a standardized test. Let me tell you 2 stories to make my point: #1. Although I lived in Brooklyn, which packs almost 3,000,000 people into 70 square miles, I went to a public school which was almost unique. My school housed coed Kindergarten through 3rd grade and a girls only JHS (7-8-9). Three blocks away was another public school which served coed 4th through 6th grade and a boys only JHS. There were only 2 classes in each elementary school grade. Somehow, someone screwed up and I was put directly into 1st grade at 5 years and 5 months of age, Since I never went to kindergarten, was two years younger than some of the other children and came from a small family, I was socially behind all the other children in my class. We were in a poor district and there was not enough text books to go around and because I was behind, I did not get a book or when I did, I had to share with someone who read much faster than me and would turn the page before I was 25% finished reading it. I went into the second grade and get Mrs. O as my teacher. She was a sarcastic and caustic women who only appreciated the smart children. Being behind, I got little attention and even less encouragement. Now here's where it gets weird. I broke my leg in the summer between 2nd and 3rd grade and came back to school in late October. Because of retirement, Mrs. O was my teacher again and because I was further behind, she gave me less help. Since there were not enough 3rd grade books to go around, Mrs. O started three groups: the fast learners, the slow learners and a group in the middle. The fast learners got 3rd grade text books, the middle group got left over 2nd grade books and my slow learner's group got used 1st grade books that had missing pages and graffiti all through them. Mrs. O paid more attention to the fast group and they completed their books that year, the middle group got half way through their books and my group, because we were so slow was downgraded to Donald Duck comic strips from the newspapers. Well, things were supposed to change in the 4th grade because I would be going to the other school three blocks away, but due to a situation involving demolition buildings to build a new city low income projects and a new school being built, they decided to expand my school to 4th grade and I got Mrs. O as my teacher again and stayed in the dummies group (as everyone but Mrs. O called it). When it was time to go into the 5th grade, the same thing happened with the same Mrs. O as my teacher with all her preconceived notions about my abilities. I was still on the same 1st grade text books when I left the fifth grade. The projects were finally built, the JHS was built, so the JHS girls left for their new school and there were now 6 classes in my 6th grade with a new teacher, Mr. B and all new books. Though I had not finished my first grade text books yet, I was given these new 6th grade books, but there was no one to teach me anything because a large percentage of the children who moved into the newly finished projects and who were in my class, did not speak English since they had just moved to Brooklyn from Puerto Rico. Well, I decided, I was going to learn. I asked the other children questions and whenever I could get his attention, I asked Mr. B. When we took the mid-year standardized state-wide tests, I score 9th grade reading level and 12th grade math level. If we had FCAT's like my grandson had here in Florida, I would still be in the 1st grade (and at 61, I would sure look funny). I scored over 1350 on my college boards, though I had no real elementary school training. Today, we cause kids to burn out by the time they reach middle-school. We are so worried about grading them, that we drive their spirit from them. If schools focused on basic skills, socialization, nutrition and instilling a desire for knowledge in our children, we would not have the problems we are having now. #2: My grandson of 14 was a C+,B- student in Brooklyn. Here in Florida, he is an A student, but he is no smarter than he was in Brooklyn. The schools are just worse because of the FCAT's demand on teacher's time. He was starting to lose interest in school, because of all the FCAT preparation, so I decided to get my A&P study books out. A&P is the license required to work on airplanes and the books contain a lot of physics, chemistry, science and math, that are presented in a way, that is mentally stimulating. The books give examples of scientific experiments which challenge the imagination. My grandson, now challenges his science teacher when they pass off the pablum as science that they are teaching in Florida's schools.

Did you ever hear of Pearl Harbor?

Faybe: Let me explain two things to you. First: When George BuSh became president, the exemption for the inheritance tax was $675,000. That meant that if someone died and left one half million dollars, there was no tax. If someone died and left one million dollars in their estate, the tax would only be on the $325,000 over the exceptional. That would leave about $835,000 to the heirs of the estate. I do not think that this is an issue for poor people to worry about, except it the rich are exempted from paying taxes, who do think will pay them? Second: Privatizing Social Security will mean that many will lose money. What people fail to understand is that the stock-market is like a poker game. Except for IPO's, it is a zero sum balance game. When I bought stock in MicroSoft, MicroSoft did not get one penny of the $40,000 that I invested, because I bought it from people, other investors, who were selling their MicroSoft stock. Right now, although MicroSoft has made money for the 3 years that I have owned it and although all the investment literature says it is the company to buy, I am losing $3,000 on paper. If I needed the money or if I had panicked, I might have sold it last year for a $6,000 loss. Rich people can afford to wait. Poor people can't wait and they panic, so they sell and lose money. Their losses are the rich people's gains. About the poker analogy, Let's say Mr. A, Mr. B, Mr. C and I meet for a game of poker on Friday night. I have $200, A has $400, B has $300 and C has $100 which is a total of $1,000. At the end of the night, there will still be $1,000 in the room where we are playing poker. It may be distributed differently: I may have $135, A may have $600, B may have $150 and C may have $115, but the total is still $1,000. The market works the same. Today the market is near its all time high. People are buying stock at these high prices. People who are selling the stocks being bought today are making money. The stocks were at this point about a few months ago. Many people bought at those prices, then the stock market dropped a few hundred points. Some people were buying and others were selling during the decline, but the people who bought near the low point now have nice profits, but those that bought at the high point (of a few months ago) and sold on the way down or near the low point lost money. The government might not let people buy individual stocks, but the value of mutual funds that I have, following the DOW JONES just as the individual stocks did. Many people transferred money from their 401k's interest bearing account into mutual funds when the market was high and many of them got scared seeing their retirement savings losing value and transferred back into their interest bearing account. They lost money as compared to leaving it in their interest bearing account. If the government passes the Private SS accounts law, the market will skyrocket in anticipation of all the new buying money coming into the market. Buying drives the value up. By the time the SS private funds are ready to buy, the market will be way up. The market will continue up for a few months until the large investors decide to take their huge profits. They will sell at or near a new “highest point in the history of the market”. The huge selling spree will drive the market down. The small SS investors will panic as they see their acounts drop, driving the market down faster. The market will drop about a 1000 points causing most of the SS investors huge losses. The rich will buy back as the market approaches the bottom. The market will eventually get hot with the buying power of the rich at which point when the market is high again, the SS people will be angry for having missed their chance, and will start buying as the market gets high. The rich will be selling making profits... And the beat goes on. Just remember for every man who made a fortune in the market, there are hundreds of poor people who lost money. They even sell computer programs to help unknowledgeable investors beat the market. One program which works on a “Red-Light, Green-light” system costs $4,000 but works on the principal of buy high, sell low. People who know how to make money; buy low and sell high.

BuSh has already said that he plans to do just that. And he was not embarrassed.

If I had started this thread on most other sites, it would not have lasted one page, let alone 8 before someone would have accused someone else of BuSh bashing, God bashing, etc which would have led to using euphemisms for Liberal that I will not use in mixed company and then retaliation, foul language, mobilization of cliques, PM's to defend the honor of the ideology and finally total loss of discussion about any topic other than we are better than you and your type has ruined the USA, so get out. Everyone at this forum and particularly those members who posted in this thread, should give themselves a round of applause. :clap2:

Some people see the glass half full, some see it half empty. You are seeing in totally empty. You should be proud of yourself. You have had the courage to do something about your situation. You have tried. You are not their yet, but at least you started the journey. I have been banded for 4 years and I still have weight to lose. I am over half way there. My family thinks that I am a failure because I eat things that I should not, but losing 95 pounds is 95 pounds better than doing nothing. Your husband is supporting you. Show him that you appreciate his support. You may not want to do anything for yourself, but do something for him to show him you appreciate him. Take a shower before he comes home from work and meet him at the door in your nicest negligee. Let him see the progress that you have made and appreciate you, while you appreciate him. There is nothing that will make you feel any better than feeling close to someone that loves you. Good luck, I know you can do it. :clap2:

Hi Chelly, I had a complete unfill because of gastric reflux and inability to hold anything down. I have been empty for 3 months and I will be making an appointment soon to start filling again. I have gained over 30 pounds.

Employment Increased In 47 States Over The Past 12 Months Ending In June. What kind of jobs? Real GDP Grew A Strong 3.5 Percent Over The Past 4 Quarters. That is good news. Productivity Has Grown At A Strong 3.5 Percent Annual Rate Since The First Quarter Of 2001 Also good. Real After-Tax Income Has Risen By 13.5 Percent Since January 2001. That is bad because that is less than less than a 2.5% annual rate which is less than the rate of inflation. It means worker are losing buying power for a week's work. Industrial Production Increased 4.5 Percent Over The Past 12 Months. Also good. Manufacturing Production Has Risen 5.7 Percent Over The Past 12 Months Also good. A few other notes are we have not had another attack on our soil since he's actually started the war on Terror rather than watching it! That's only 5 years. Clinton went 7 years and 10 months from the first WTC attack until he handed the government over to BuSh, so 5 years without an attack is nothing to brag about and it proves nothing about why there has been not further attacks. We also have some great legislation that has been signed and passed; Deficit Reduction Act Cut Medicare, Medicaid and Veteran's benefits. The Pension Plan overhaul Plan; Generally a decent Bill. Senior Perscription Plan (even though its too expensive for me). The reason it is so expensive both for the seniors and for the tax-payers is because there is a provision in the law which makes it illegal for the US Government to negotiate medicare Rx prices with the Drug Companies. Canada negotiates prices with the drug companies. The US Veteran's administration negotiates Rx prices with the drug companies. Insurance Companies negotiates prices with the drug companies. The biggest purchaser of Rx drugs in the world, the Medicare department of the USA cannot negotiates Rx prices with the drug companies. Was that a good piece of legislation?

The major stock-holder of GM told the board of directors that GM should look into partnerships and they are in discussions with Nissan and Renault.

OK. The Flat tax is a joke played on the people who want to think things will be fair that way. First, the number one reason that flat tax can not work is that a corporation is considered as one person. GM and Exxon-Mobil and I are each considered as one person. If GM sells 3 million cars and takes in 75 billion dollars, although it cost 73 billion to make the cars, they would still have to pay tax on 75 billion dollars which at 17% is 29 million dollars. So GM would lose 27 billion dollars. How can GM survive losing 27 billion because they had to pay so much tax. If Exxon-Mobil sells 75 billion dollars of oil based products which cost them 45 billion to manufacture, they would pay the same 29 billion dollars in taxes. At least Exxon-Mobil would have One billion left after taxes, but nowhere near the 30 billion that they made after taxes last year. WHY? Because a flat tax does not allow deductions. So a business could not deduct their expenses from their income to arrive at profit which normal taxes are based on. OK, you say, so we will allow deductions for business expenses. Then I and everyone else will incorporate and be allowed deductions. Many people in the North-East where Local Real Estate taxes are high would lose their homes if they could not deduct Real Estate taxes. Ok, so we will allow Real Estate taxes to be deducted. Many of the working poor are barely able to survive raising children on Wal-Mart wages. They pay no federal tax now. Many make $320 a week and survive paycheck to paycheck, but let's take another $55 out of their paycheck for the 17% flat tax. Boy this flat tax is fun. GM is driven into bankruptcy, with Exxon-Mobil not to far behind, most of the people in the North-East are losing their homes and the working poor are also becoming homeless. Sorry, but the flat tax only sounds good when Billionaires explain it and that is because they are the only ones who will benefit from it. Ok. Some millionaires will too. Oh and if you want to make the playing field level, get Bill Gates to share his money evenly with you and me. Then a flat tax would sound good.

Because to serve in Washington DC, you need to have two homes, one in your district that you were elected from and one in DC so that you can work in congress. When you add up the extra costs of two homes (or 2 apartments, or one home, one apartment) plus traveling home to see the family, it is a lot of extra money. About 25 years ago, my coworkers and some local politicians tried to talk me into running for congress from my district in Brooklyn. I calculated all the costs and if I stayed honest (which was why they wanted me to run), I could not afford to be a congressman. Many people start out honest, but when they find out what it takes to be a congressman, they realize that it is either take lobbyist money or lose money. Only people who start with a large bank account can afford to lose that much money. If only rich people can afford to serve, they will make sure that the laws benefit the rich. These flat-tax proposals are all started by rich men. They sound good, because most people do not understand business or the way taxes are calculated. Steve Forbes, a man who inherited his money from his father's magazine company, and now makes a lot of money is pushing the flat tax. I do not have enough time to explain why a flat tax would never work, but believe me, it is all smoke and mirrors to trick the poor into voting the rich another bundle of money. Talking about Forbes, they just published a list of the 400 richest Americans. For the first time in history, every one of the 400 were billionaires and in fact quite a few billionaires didn't even make the list. When the Republicans talk about the economy doing well, they are not talking about the x-factory worker now working as a security guard or the 30,000 GM employees who just left or the 30,000 or so Ford employees who will be leaving soon, they are talking about the CEO's who make so much money that if you offered them the next 104 winning Lottery tickets (one years worth of winning tickets) in place of their salary, it would be an insult. Talking about taxes. In the 1950's, the USA had the greatest economic growth in its history and produced thousands of millionaires, and yet the highest tax rate was 90%. It is now 32% and BuSh wants it lowered. I do not like the way many rich people have accumulated their wealth, but even the most Robin Hood type liberal, would never force a man to give up his money to serve the public. Not even me.

Believe it or not: You can read the next paragraph! I cdnuolt blveiee taht I cluod aulaclty uesdnatnrd waht I was rdanieg The phaonmneal pweor of the hmuan mnid. Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoatnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be in the rghit pclae. The rset can be a taotl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit a porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Amzanig huh? yaeh and I awlyas thought slpeling was ipmorantt.

I could not disagree with you more. I have read where people have said that congressman should serve without pay because it is an honor. Some small states have office holders who are part time workers. The only people that can afford to serve as elected officials when the pay is lowered are people who are rich. Most of those people will be those who were born rich. President BuSh's father was a President and his grandfather was a Senator. Do we want to return to a Monarchy? Do we want rich people deciding on what laws should be passed? The less pay elected officials make, the less chance a common working man (or woman) will have of getting into politics.