[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I partially agree with you. It is true that the government is not always doing what its constituents want it to do.

On the other hand, I think you are way off the mark with your other comments. I don't think there is any specific strategy that 70% of Americans would agree on in Iraq. However, there have been several startegies presented by people in government. I do think that 70% of the population would support at least one of the approaches presented. That is my point. My point is that the bipartisan, mainstream ideas in Congress usually cover the viewpoints of mainstream America.

With regard to the wiretaps, if you explain to people exactly what is being done, I think the vast majority of Americans are in favor of the wiretaps. Our government is only wiretapping the phones of people that have been communicating with terrorists. Who would possibly be against us tapping the phones of people who have been communciating with terrorists?

With regard to what is going on at Gitmo, I would have to think that the vast majority of Americans are ok with what's going on. We may not like it, but if it may save lives then I think people are willing to give our government some leeway. Have you seen any indication that a large percenatge of Americans are against the interrogation techniques used? By the way, you also need to consider that there are plenty of people out there who will simply be against a policy for partisan reasons. For example, let's say that there is 35% of the population who claim that they are against our interrogation techniques. you have to remeber that many of these same people will have no problem with those exact techniques if a Democrat was President. There is major hypocrisy in both parties. There are plenty of Americans in both parties that will complain about a policy if the policy is initiated by the other party. For example, there were plenty of Americans that were complaing when Clinton was bombing Kosovo. Many of those same people that were complaining would not have been complaining if it was Bush who was bombing Kosovo.

Hey, Rupert,

Yes, I do agree that the majority of Americans fall somewhere in a middle area on politics (and yes, I too imagine you and I would probably find more common ground than difference between us), but I think the original statement brought up for debate was that there was little difference between the current Democratic and Republican party, and there I disagree. In the 1950s, I would agree with you-- really, right up until the Republicans aligned themselves with the Religious Right (credit Reagan for that). Since then, I think there's been an extremism creeping into Republican leadership. At this point in time, I absolutely see a difference in the agendas of the two parties (and I think a lot of those people have confused capitalism with Christianity). In the future, they may seem fairly similar again, but not right now. And Bush has accelerated the influx of religion in the Republican party, and I think the party is starting to pay the price for it, because religious faith is inevitably marginalizing because it works on a precept of "my faith is right and yours is wrong." (Unless you're a pagan, but they can't even get a crummy pentacle on the graves of pagan soldiers, so clearly no one's listening to pagans). And saying "I think lots of Democrats wanted a cut in the capital gains tax" is not the same as Democrats spearheading an effort to cut it, because "I think" isn't proof. So until such time as they do push for it, we have to assume they don't.

I find it very, very hard to believe most Americans would approve of Gitmo. What I find interesting (and depressing) about the state of our nation is the lack of interest most Americans seem to have in Gitmo, or the FBI whistleblower who was mistakenly imprisoned and then tortured for three months until the Army realized their mistake, the end of habeus corpus, or really, Iraq (how many Americans know the difference between a ****e and a Sunni?), although most people seem to be aware we're over there, anyway. And I think it's because the average American doesn't feel himself or herself personally affected by it. And if it doesn't directly affect us, we don't care. Bring back the draft, and you'll see how fast Americans start caring about Iraq. And it may be the only option, if Bush is determined to send more troops over. Which, for the record, I do think is necessary if we're to make an attempt to stablize what we've done before we get out, but I don't think we have the troops, so I think it's like saying, "I should pay off my parents' mortgage with my lottery winnings." Sure. Except I don't have any. And I don't feel I have the right to demand other people's sons and daughters get sent over for what I think is a lost cause.

Regarding income levels and taxes on capital gains (not your post, Rupert; another poster)- no, I'm not wealthy, but that doesn't mean I'm not allowed to have an opinion on whether the wealthy should pay more in taxes than the middle-class and poor. Of course they should; they have more money. A family making $25,000 a year still needs a place to live, food to eat and money to pay for the doctor. And last I checked, the price of a cheeseburger wasn't staggered according to income. So, proportinately speaking, the low and middle-income pay a far higher percentage of their income towards essentials-- food, housing, health care, than do the wealthy. Which amounts to an tax on the poor and middle-class. It's why I favor raising the wealthy's income tax before I do state sales tax-- a larger proportion of the poor and middle-class income goes to sales tax than does the wealthy. Especially in a state like Arkansas (as Danzig pointed out) where even food is taxed.

Tax rates have risen and fallen throughout our history, but it seems to me the rich always seem to have enough for multiple houses, cars, and clothing that costs more than I make in a year. I don't have sympathy for pleas of overtaxation from people who own more than one home, and certainly not from people whose main income is off of dividends from stocks-- they're not even working for that money. They've got multiple homes, cars, servents, etc. They can afford to pay more of that disposable income so the government can keep running. So they have four homes instead of five. Cry me a river.

And yes, I own stocks and bonds. Not a lot, but I do. And I don't resent being taxed on them. I consider myself lucky enough to be able to set a little aside every month for retirement and long-term emergencies every month. So tax me on them. S'okay with me.