Why liberals should never be in power...

[A Black Falcon]

See the difference is that there is solid evidence behind the things in your little list here.

1. Keep the poor poor.

anti-everything improving poverty related

2. Make the rich richer.

tax policy, corporate tax breaks, corporations writing laws in special meetings with administration officials (like the energy industry for instance), corporate giveaways, ex-CEOs in high office, major environmental law rollbacks (helping corporations), etc, etc, etc

3. Keep Blacks,

anti-AA, anti-poverty programs, serious tax cuts on the poor

Mexicans,

anti-immigration policy

Indians, Orientals, Jews,

Muslims,

just plain hatred

Gays, Lesbians,

anti-gay rights, hatred/fear

Buddhists, Hindus,

Women,

anti-reproductive rights

Hobbits, Elves,

The French,

more hatred

and Cute Little Kittens safely subservient and destitute, so that they will pose no threat to some imaginary Rich White Christian Male oligarchy.
4. Pollute the environment as much as humanly possible, as if we were Captain Planet villians.
5. Conquer the world, one step at a time.

4. if you could you would, and are trying your best to get rid of all those silly environmental laws that stop you. There's a reason that this administration has been called the worst environmentally in an extremely long time...

5. Again you would if you could, but can't right now because the troops are tied down in Iraq... which of course was a step on that path.

It depends on the HMO really.

I'm not saying the existing system is perfect, it's hardly that. But nationalizing health care will be an economic catastrophe that we, and frankly, the world, cannot handle. Imagine how America's economy would suffer when taxes have to go up to 50%... 60%... 70%... just to pay for everyone to have bare-bones health coverage.

And again, the devastating effects such an idea would have on medical research would also, in the long run, make the plan save more lives short term, and cost lives long-term.It's not worth it.

The existing system is badly flawed and more government control and coverage is desperately needed. See, unlike you I think that when given a chance the government can do decent work... and as for "crippling recearch", they'd have more than enough money if they didn't spend such insane amounts advertising.

I agree that corporations do not need tax breaks. But, I do not think people with more money deserve to have a higher percentage of it taken away from them. That boils down to punishment for having too much money.

Conversely, expecting the poor to at least attempt to become self-sufficient and not lounge on free government money until they drop dead isn't hating the poor either. It's saying that I expect people to be as industrious and hard-working as anyone else

The Bush Administration's policy is "whatever a corporation wants, it gets" -- at least as long as it's a conservatively-run one...

Cutting taxes on the poorer groups (or getting rid of them alltogether) and coorspondingly raising them on high incomes would be a great idea.

That we were. And the right to vote for blacks was not created or birthed in the 1960s.

A vast majority definitely lived in southern states...

I support the flat-tax rate. It's more fair than any other method could possibly be. Cuts and raises would be universal and based only on percentage of wealth.

So the rich can afford to give more in taxes. That doesn't in any way justify making them do so. They already pay a great deal of the taxes as it is. One billionaire pays several thousand times as much in taxes as the average joe.

The flat tax. Blatant and barely-concealed attempt to dramatically lower taxes on the rich even MORE and raise taxes on the poor. Very, very bad idea.

It is few, especially when you consider that most people in America are not poor. Simple.

So because 260 million have some kind of coverage the 40 that don't don't matter. No way. No one is unimportant.

Jesus. What defines a decent job? It's not like they'd pick produce in a sweltering field all day. Working retail or other entry-level jobs are not the most fun, dignified jobs in the world, but they do pay well enough that in conjunction with a token amount of government support most poor people could live with some comfort and save money for whatever sort of investment they wish, be it financial investment, education, etc.

I just can't believe you think that because they wouldn't be able to get a $25K per year job right off the bat means they'd be better off not working at all. That is stupid. That is purely stupid.

For one thing not really far away so they don't spend lots of time in transit, especially if they're single parents with young kids... that would be really, really hard on their children...

And with a much more tightly-controlled and regulated welfare system, things would be infinitely better. Not to mention, less burdensome to taxpayers.

Fundamental disagreement. The only way to improve things is to make the welfare system bigger. Regulate it well and reduce waste? Fine. But I do not think that there are nearly as large amounts of it as you imply.