Sojc

It was Kerry that put the issue on the table last week or so in the news, true? t. His logic though is it was Bush's job to react quicker for a crucial 7 minutes. Kerry was not sopposed to do anything really important on 9/11. When a plane flies into a storm and does not change course for 7 minutes, do you blame the pilot or the passengers?

I believe in a happy medium. The far right is fascism, the far left is communism. Somewhere is between is as good as it can get with human government.

I'm not bashing Bush for not doing anything for 7 minutes. I'm bashing those who are bashing Kerry for not thinking about anything for 40 minutes.

Lol it was not Kerry's job to do something, it was Bush's. Kerry was not the president and was not briefed or had seen nearly what Bush had seen in regards to global terrorism.

That is the exact problem. If you think oppotunity is equal in the United States, you are living in a box.

Bearing global responsibility of not war maybe, not on global poverty. http://www.worldrevolution.org/article/887 http://www.nccbuscc.org/cchd/povertyusa/tour2.htm "Income disparities figured prominently in the UNICEF study, which estimated that 47 million impoverished children live in the world's 23 richest countries. The report found the lowest rates of child poverty among northern European countries with strong traditions of wealth redistribution. Sweden - with only 2.6 per cent of its children living in poverty - had the lowest rate, while Canada ranked behind France, Germany, Hungary and Japan, but ahead of Britain, Italy, the United States and Mexico, in last place with a 26.2-per-cent child poverty rate." Lol ok so I was wrong, the United States is not the worst, America is better than Mexico. http://66.59.133.172/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=M1ARTM0012199 http://www.teachersparadise.com/ency/en/wi...ted_states.html

I was simply trying to make the point that in a capitalist nation making only the wealthy benefit from the government only widens the wealth gap. I ask you, what is a better goal for the nation? Growth with a growing gap between rich and poor? Or growth with a shrinking gap between rich and poor? Lol and if I wanted to make a low-blow I could ask Haliburton about "fuzzy math" and how much they are charging the US government.

Suffering so much? America is doing pretty well from what I can see. And it's also evidenced by the fact that people from all over the world still want to come here. I am saying suffering as in having the highest poverty for a developed nation and the worst general health of her people.

The issue at hand is was Iraq a big enough security threat to warrant invading when the economy is so fragile. Less money could have been spent on iraq to nab Osama Bin Ladin. And even if Iraq was imminently dangerous Iran and Saudi Arabia are much more involved in terrosim and North Korea has much more WMDs. You're all over the map here Sojc. This thread is not intended to debate the merits of the war on terrorism. I just pointed out that in times of war it is necessary to run a deficit, and that running a deficit in order to stimulate the economy is also a good idea. There is nothing wrong with short-term deficits. There is a problem with the bloated federal budget though. So why should we trust congress with redistributing wealth, when they cannot control their own spending! Lol sorry, there are many problems with the world and neither Bush or John Kerry could fix then, only one could do a worse job than another. I simply do not like ineffeicient spending. How do you think the swiss do so well, they are efficient.

Actually many BMW's are made in America now, so the American worker benefits from their purchase. And Ferraris and Porsches have to be maintained, again better for American workers. And they're purchased from American dealerships, so the salespeople get the commission. Government deciding on the redistribution of wealth is NEVER a good idea. The large chunk or the cake still goes foreign. When america is suffering so much every penny must be pinched. That means investing amrican so your wealth can bring the most benefit. I still don't mind outsourcing when the money goes to countries like India, China, Malaysia, and other nations that need it since people are living very very poorly. However western europe does not need american money.

The issue at hand is was Iraq a big enough security threat to warrant invading when the economy is so fragile. Less money could have been spent on iraq to nab Osama Bin Ladin. And even if Iraq was imminently dangerous Iran and Saudi Arabia are much more involved in terrosim and North Korea has much more WMDs.

It is not covetous. If you went to dinner with a bunch or friend and you all shared the bill, would you not be annoyed if a firend didn't pay for what he/she ate? Yes, I would. And the less-wealthy use the same public roads, signals, emergency services, public schools, etc.. etc.. So, you just made our point.

The rich do not always invest in America. And often buy foreign. Who benefits more when a farrari, Porsche, or BMW is purchased? American or Italy and Germany? I am not a communist. How has socialism showed how it has failed. Europe's living standards are higher than America's and Canada has been having surplusses recently, compared to America's record deficits...

Its surprising that many of you see people on welfare as lazy bums taking advantage of the system. If the same view was put on christians as arrogant it is not right. Did not god say he'd spare the city of Sodom if only 5 were good. In this case a few bad apples ruin the system that does benefit many. Welfare needs to be changed so it is harder to abuse, not so it is harder for people who genuinely need welfare to recieve it.

Jesus did NOT preach socialism. The early church did become a commune after His ascension....and it was an utter disaster!!! That is exactly why the Apostle Paul had to take up a collection for the poor saints of Jerusalem in Romans 16. btw...the rich can have another Porsche. The only effect it has on me is GOOD This is money that goes back into our economy and keeps the folks at the Porsche dealership employed and off of Welfare. Why are you so concerned about what someone else haves or gets? The word is "covetous" I never got a job from a poor man. It is not covetous. If you went to dinner with a bunch or friend and you all shared the bill, would you not be annoyed if a firend didn't pay for what he/she ate? The top 1% of Americans have more money than the bottom 95% combined. Is it not right that the top 1% pay more taxes combined than the bottom 95% combined?

Its not as if the top 5% control 5% of america's wealth! The reason they pay all the taxes is that they have all the money! First, in the 1970's the top 1% of American households controlled 20% of the nation's wealth. In the late 1990's, the top 1% of American households controls over 40% of the nation's wealth. Conversely, the wealthiest 1% now owns more wealth than the entire bottom 95% combined. So that means the bottom 95% should not pay for more than 50% of the taxes. The top 5% should pay for at least 50% of the taxes. Thats is justice!

Cutting taxes is good, but there are tax gets that help the economy(any tax cut), and there are tax cuts that help the economy and greatly directly benefits the majority of people (tax cuts for the middle and lower class). Many people here think socialism is evil. Did not Jesus and the early church preach socialism and had christians living in a very socialist way? Getting only the church to help the poor is inherently unfair since church distribution is never equal across all areas. What also is needed is a reduction of government spending. Bush is decieving people when he says he stands for a smaller government. Even without defense spending government spending has boomed under Bush. Budget deficits should never be tolerated and the current administration always seems to dodge the issue of the deficit because it hurts their re-election hopes. Ignorance is not bliss. All these americans who boast of a growing economy are ignoring that deficits counters a good economy. How is the deficit going to factor in the future? The children will have to pay for it. Near end times global chaos ensues and America's economy will most likely be weakened, how much will future americans curse at current government spending when future americans will have to pay for it? Be prepared for the prospect of being bankrupt when you are retired. What is more justified? Cutting taxes of the top 1 percent so they can afford another Porsche?, or cutting taxes of the middle and lower class so they can afford good Healthcare and send their children to good universities? I say healthier and more educated people will help more in the long term than more Porsches on the road. I have conservatve moral values but centrist economic values (it's interesting that the original chirstians were christian communists). I would have voted for Nixon, probably for Reagan, maybe for Bush Sr., definitely not for Bush Jr.

"NEW YORK (Reuters) - President Bush's tax cuts have transferred the federal tax burden from the richest Americans to middle-class families, with one-third of them benefiting people with the top 1 percent of income, according to a government report cited in newspapers on Friday. The Congressional Budget Office report, to be released Friday, is likely to fuel the debate over the cuts between Bush and his Democratic challenger in November, John Kerry. The report said the top 1 percent, with incomes averaging $1.2 million per year, will receive an average $78,460 tax cut this year, and have seen their share of the total tax burden fall roughly 2 percentage points to 20.1 percent, according to The New York Times. In contrast, households in the middle 20 percent, with incomes averaging $57,000 per year, will receive an average cut of only $1,090, the newspaper said, citing the CBO report. Taxpayers whose incomes range from $51,500 to around $75,600, saw their share of federal tax payments increase, according to CBO figures cited by The Washington Post. The calculations, requested by congressional Democrats, confirm the long-held view by independent tax analysts that the tax cuts, enacted in 2001 and 2003, have heavily favored the wealthiest taxpayers, the Times said. Bush has said the cuts provided crucial support to the U.S. economy after the Sept. 11 attacks and the three-year decline in U.S. stocks. But Kerry, who wants to roll back the cuts for households whose incomes top $200,000 per year, has said the cuts did little for the economy, and helped cause the federal budget to swing from a more than $100 billion surplus in 2001 to a projected deficit exceeding $400 billion this year. The newspapers, citing the CBO report, said about two-thirds of the benefits from the cuts went to households in the top 20 percent, with an average income of $203,740. People in the lowest 20 percent of earnings, which averaged $16,620, saw their effective tax rate fall to 5.2 percent from 6.7 percent, though their average tax cut was only $250." http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?t...storyID=5966706 The question is, for the middle class does the $1000 saved in taxes cover for the rising costs of health insurace, college education, gas, etc. How much more could the middle class save if the rich only recieved a $40,000 tax cut instead of a $80,000 tax cut. PS, just because I may critisize this administration does not mean I am pro-Kerry. It is harder for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than a rich man (Bush and Kerry) to enter the kindom heaven.

I can't believe how arrogant some of you people are. Just because you don't like the guy and do not support him does not mean it's Christian for you to spew vitriol at him. By supporting a low-blow attack at someones character when it is unclear that it is true is satanic. I personally believe that Satan is cleverly slowly corrupting many Christians by causing hate in their hearts for John Kerry. You all need to examine yourselves more clearly and think about where you hate of the left is leading you. It is a cliche but it is still totally true, judge not less ye be judged. You could end up as those self-proclaimed "loving" christians who protested AT A MURDERED HOMOSEXUALS FUNERAL!

My agenda is to try to resolve my chirstian bretheren with my medical bretheren. STem cells can do much good and can be the greatest thing since penicillin. If anyone wants to get touchy I ask why not use the surplus embryos from invitro for stem cell research since they would be destroyed anyways. I am pro-life if you must know but I don't really consider cells something that doesn't even have organs or brain cells as a person.

Both stem cell research and in-vitro fertilization result in killing embryos, yet Bush supports in-vitro fertilization.