Each person should be taxed the same percentage out of their income. That way the rich pay more than the poor, but they are still paying the same percentage. If the poor think that it takes too much out of their income then they should get a better education or a better job.
yeah, flat tax would be the fairest route to go. the rich already pay the majority of the taxes anyway. my sister-in-law doesn't even pay taxes and she get a refund every year. i don't see how the poor are being overly burdened, never have, especially since i was making well under 20k/year for a long time. my taxes were never harsh and i always had access to services when i needed them.
Do you see how it's possible that America's alienation from the international community could ultimately result in a threat to our national security that is greater than the threat we would face otherwise -as members of an organization that is primarily dedicated to international peace and security?
I agree, but that's still no reason to bend over backwards for an organization that won't look out for our interests. And what has the UN done to keep internatonal peace and security? Rwanda? Serbia? North Korea? Don't get me started on the human rights violations going on in China and Myanmar. The UN is, sadly, a failure at this point in time. Plus, any UN peacekeeping mission would have to consist of at least 50% US forces, probably more. And they still hate us. I the UN grew a pair, decided to actualy enorce half of it's shitty declarations, and handed out a few ultimatums (besides santions, which do nothing besides starve innocent people to death), then I would be in favor of supporting them. But the way things are, the US has no reason to sacrifice it's well being to gain popularity in the eyes of the world, which is what Kerry will do.
As I've said before, the reason the UN is so impotent is because the strong countries ignore UN resolutions and decrees unless they happen to agree with them. If we do, then the rest of the world would be more likely to follow suit. And the support of the strong countries is essential for the UN to have any clout. That's one of the things I like about Kerry... I think the idea that US interests should go before anyone else's is arrogant and is one reason why we're so unpopular abroad. I think if the US wants any help in getting out of the Iraq mess, and hopes to have any support in this mismanaged campaign against terrorism, we'd be wise to swallow our pride and sacrifice some of our own precious interests for that of the international community. We should expect to do that if the UN was ever a power. If you complain that the UN is weak and doesn't assert itself enough, why do you abhor the idea of the US deferring to the UN? It'll only be strong if countries like us are willing to set aside our own agendas for international interests.
I believe this is the greatest post that allah can allow. It started out about a military strike in Iraq and wondered 5 thousand miles back home and started talkin about taxes. Wow. This belongs in a hall of fame of some sorts. On a side note, its amazin how worked up and radical people get over thier political views(demo and repub). It bears a strikin resemblance to muslim extremists.
i found a web URL for you! I think you'll love it! www.hipforums.com/forums/login.php?do=logout&u=4011
The UN should earn the bigger nations' loyalty first, not demand that they respect it's authority just because. First off stop the policy of sanctions, because sanctions are worthless. Second, kick all dictators and known violators of human rights out of the UN. Third, demand that the world recognize and solve the security and human rights issues going on everywhere, and and demand that they do something about it. Their peaceful, "wait it out" stance isn't going to solve anything. The US will more than happily support the UN if it grows a pair and cleans up the backwards, hypocritical system that it runs on right now.
Hmm, that begs the question of whether we'd still be in. Not to mention an overall big chunk of the UN's membership.
Well, if the United States' powerful interest was properly directed towards international peace and security, it is possible that we could have a system that the rest of the world would agree with... How successful can we expect an international organization to be when it is defied by the world's most powerful country? If U.S. interest was handled in a way that could be agreed upon by the majority of the world, then our influence in the organization could be something that is worthwhile. Was Iraq really a threat to our well-being? Are we going to invade the entire Middle East for a tendency of it's scattered minority? (Which we have actually helped promote: http://www.theglobalist.com/DBWeb/p...px?StoryId=3453) Could tighter border control (and a less narrowly accepted foreign policy) be our best pre-emptive action against covert terrorists? The UN could not near as easily disagree with that, and from that point we could act with the world on our side. With our erratic display of force, we may well be creating our biggest threat yet...
Here's some more lies, Brother! Bush said: The Truth: Link1 Link2 Bush said: The Truth: Link 1 Link 2 I could do this all night!!!
I'm sure you could go on all night, but would you actually prove anything? That's one example of free speech blocked by the occupation authorities. So Iraq doesn't have a free press because you can't tell people it is their "religious duty" to kill members government and everyone associated with it? How would you say freedom to criticise the coalition compares with freedom to critisize under Saddam? Is it getting better or worse? Did this say all at once, immediately? Would you say coalition power is being increased or decreased? Measuring against a utopian ideal may be fun if the only purpose is to critisize, but it would seem to indicate that you don't have any interest in proposing real world policy options.
I think you've done this before. Pretending that the UN is some kind of independent entity that chooses its own course of action. Some kind of entity with its own armed forces and ability to enforce declarations, or the power to command others to enforce declarations. That's fun because then when the US deliberately tries to shut down any talk about intervention in Rwanda, a few years later they can say that "the UN" didn't do anything about Rwanda.
Yep, it proves Bush is a liar. The lies I posted were just random but I have more somewhere I can dig up.. Now if Bush said that he wanted to go into Iraq because he wanted Halliburton and his daddy to make more money then I may have a bit more respect for him but I hate liars. You just don't say that Iraq will be free at the same time you take down their media, geeeezzzze!!! They were in compliance, there are no WMD and Saddam was sick of being messed with so he said NO and we bullied our way into war. America imprisons more people than all of Europe and we kill as many citizens as China or close. Does anyone try and invade us? No.. Our criminal justice system is a joke and based upon convictions won not lost so fraudulant police work goes unchecked and innocent people are killed and imprisoned everyday here. Invading Iraq was a mistake that Bush will pay for this November.
Really? How do you know this? This seems more of a reflection of American citizens than the justice system.
Does anyone really know anything about this? I can only do the research as well as I can..... Link This is from Bush's own boy so maybe the credibility factor is off, who knows.... Link 1 Link 2 Link Do the research, it's out there if you really want to know.....
You are taking more of their money simply becasue they are making a life for themselves--it's bullshit. I am far from rich, but I can still see injustice on wealthy as well as poor people.
