The richest 5% of people in the USA pay 56% of taxes. The richest 20% of people (which includes the previously mentioned 5%) pay 96% of all taxes. The statistics speak for themselves. Go Google "wealthy pay in taxes" for the stats. There isn't enough favoritism for the wealthy when you look at the numbers. They are unfairly penalized for being successful.
To me this seems to be simple statistics. I guarantee you that the very wealthiest citizens in the bracket you speak of could be taxed
even more and still have a much more comfortable living situation than the mid to upper middle class. The middle class are your average consumers that contribute far more to the national economy than any other segment of our society, upper class included. If you want a captialist economy to succeed tax breaks must predominantly be given to the middle class. The upper class will almost always survive in any economic situation. Do some historical research on the wealthy during the Great Depression in the 30s. You'll see what I mean. The middle class was wiped out and most were driven to poverty level incomes, but most of the upper class maintained a sizeable portion of their wealth. Especially the "Old Money" upper class citizens.
Anyone can make a problem out of anything. One person loves this country and sees it as a shining beacon and another person despises it for a laundry list of reasons. You can't please everyone. Political parties are actually the root of the problem because they require people to fit a cookie-cutter mold.
Untrue. If you don't believe me, witness the debate this year in the 2008 Republican primaries. John McCain on many levels strays from typical "neocon" ideals, but is still a Republican. However I heartily agree that the two party system is becoming more stifling as time goes on, but it serves us better than something like Denmark or Israel's democratic process. If you want a domestic example of what I am referring to, look at the Libertarian party. There are so many different factions to the one party that no one really knows what a particular candidate stands for. There are "conservative" Libertarians, and "liberal" Libertarians, and even "anarchic" Libertarians. The Libertarian party would do well to consolidate and find a stable platform to win elections on, and I think most elections would give a truly panoramic representation of the population. We are just far too diverse a nation to give a party to every single platform stance out there.
Politicians, in particular, are extremely gullible, two-faced (go watch TV and you'll see the NY governor show up), and easy to manipulate. Go Google "ban dihydrogen monoxide" and you'll see that it's very easy to convince politicians to ban dihydrogen monoxide--a dangerous compound that leads to many deaths, suffocations, and commonly contains different microorganisms or animals that can cause serious death or injury. Did you know that dihydrogen monoxide is actually H20, water? Yes, politicians banned water in some places temporarily. THAT'S how uniformed people on all levels of government can be these days.In a perfect world every single change of law would need voter approval by referendum and voters would be able to propose things, not special interest groups and organizations and not political representatives who aren't required to actually represent the people who elected them. Government is ripe with corruption regardless of whether or not it hits the headlines. Both the left and right are scared of losing their power and will do anything to keep it and live off it. When you leave the cookie-cutter left and right molds and transcend above all the smoke and mirrors you get a much clearer picture of what's going on regardless of where you actually stand. Then you get to cherry pick what actually appeals to you instead of fitting into one of those "one size fits all" two parties, which technically isn't a democracy at all.I don't know about the rest of you, but I was always taught that this was the land of dreams when I was growing up. These days I see legislation, regulation, liability, and all these other things intruding and outright cutting off some of those dreams from ever happening. Hell, I'm probably not even legally allowed to own the lizards I have because my dreams of owning a couple of exotic pets are constantly getting smashed by all this special interest lobbying from people who distort the truth and can't figure out that a headbutt is friendly and hissing does not always mean "I'm pissed off". I should have died years ago from salmonella and random cougar attacks, but I'm still here (in fact I haven't gotten sick in a very long time since I started owning exotics). There's some things I like on the left and some things I like on the right. However, they're both incredibly stupid when it comes to some things like the aforementioned exotics ownership. I could go on and give other examples (does owning solar panels really make me liberal?) but I don't think that's appropriate here (driving an good-sized SUV makes me a conservative eh?).However, for political discussion, I do applaud the civil discussion thus far. These things tend to explode everywhere else I've seen them happen...
This is what freedom of speech and the press is all about, or at least
should be all about. The freedom of the press, which I feel is the easiest to misuse, but the most powerful constitutional freedom we enjoy has become useless thanks to the powers that be that can afford to run the press. This is a problem that has effected this country since it's first days. A scientific method and approach to journalism is something that is NOT A GIVEN. Appreciate it when you encounter it, but always be wary at the tilt a particular publisher may have when reading articles of a political nature.
This is what makes your personal freedom of speech so important. If you don't say anything, who will?
I apologize if I am driving this thread further and further off base. I'm just passionate about politics, and when a discussion seems to be as civil and intelligent as this I can't help but participate
