I gave Clinton the same credit I gave the GOP congress -- none at all.  They both benefited from a tech boom that took off in the 1990's and crashed in 2000-2001.  I made virtually the same criticism of Clinton as Mike, yet I am full of crap? How is that unfair?  What did I do run over your dog?

What did I do run over your dog?

Nope your party just ran over my country.

What did I do run over your dog?

Nope your party just ran over my country.

Why don't you just tell me to go fuck myself and be done with it?

I think it is the pie that they serve at your club. Have you looked at the nutritional info for pie?

Its good -- its organic!

Why there you go again Geoff , putting words into my mouth.

I put no words in your mouth.  I didn't say "Jodie said go fuck yourself" -- I simply recommended that you take that tack since you clearly have no interest in debating the substance of what I write, instead you made the attack personal. Not me. You. 

Geoff, I bet you are a great Lawyer!  Your double speak makes my head spin.

I don't believe that was meant as a compliment . . . .

"It's that Rooseveltian mix of free-market with a socialist safety net.  I get that if you're opposed to taxes, you're not in favor of this - but it's my understanding of how things will work most effectively.  It's why I vote Democrat."

I understand that it's not very popular with economic liberals, but I really find that a lot of the wrong questions are being asked in terms of taxes and government spending.

We want an efficient system. One without needless, pointless or counter-productive taxes, one without pork barrel spending or inefficient programs. But too often those judgement calls are either purely subjective or flat out wrong.

Some want government to maintain stability, stop crime and defend the nation. Some want it to leave them alone. Some want basic services, some want a full service package, some want government to safeguard their freedoms, some want government to morally instruct the people. It's tough sometimes to pick the right side. If there even is one.

There's a certain economic equilibrium where companies need consumers with high salaries and workers with low salaries to maximize their profits. Some balance has to be struck, or the scales will tip too far in one direction.

We all benefit from a tax-based economic system that provides services and redistributes the benefits of our total wealth, the rich more than most. Some argue that the rich pay disproportionately high taxes, but I can't say that I quite agree, as the benefits are much higher as well.

But even so, the real question to me isn't whether the rich or the middle class pay too much taxes, but whether they would truly benefit more in the long run from a lower tax rate (as a group).  The result of a lower tax rate for those who have large disposable incomes is either to reduce services (or the cost of services) or to tax the lower income brackets higher (thus reducing their already limited disposable income.)

This eventually reduces the size of the middle class.

For a consumer economy that relies on the disposition of those first few thousand dollars of disposable income (the money spent on smaller luxuries after basic housing, clothing and food needs are met, or those funds used to "upgrade" the quality of those necessities) it is better to increase the economic middle class with more tax breaks for lower rather than higher income levels.

Adding in universal healthcare lends greater economic stability to low income workers as well, while removing the immediate burden of private health care from the employers. (Corporate employers, with an obligation only to their shareholders, will use any opportunity available to them to avoid having to pay for services or implement standards beyond what is specifically required by law. Often stepping right up to the line and waving smugly at the people on the wrong side.)

Many government spending programs in health care, education etc really aid employers and companies indirectly, without that being acknowledged. Environmental Protection Agencies and the like are not there to kill private enterprise, but to make sure that private enterprise doesn't kill itself and us.

I think a lot of the conflict arises from a difference in perspective. I think it is possible to create a society that is beneficial for all, though I doubt it will also be acceptable to all.

Me: Nope your party just ran over my country.

I think the biggest problem in America politics is the treatment of the two-party system as a zero-sum game. I think comments like this are reflective of that.

I am sorry but this is the biggest problem right now, we are veiwed by most of the world by pictures like this and it was made possible because we had  republicans in all three branches of government. You see when you have 2 sons that may one day fight for this country and be captured by the enemy , you do not want them to think we feel this kind of treatment of POW's is OK.