This man is a nuts

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I agree with you somewhat. I agree with you that they wanted to get rid of Saddam from Day 1, but they were hardly the only ones. As I've said before, Kerry had advocated invading Iraq and removing Saddam back in 1999. So it is quite possible that a Democratic President would have done the same thing.

With regard to domestic policy, I don't think the parties are all that different. I don't notice big changes domestically depending which party is in power.

As soon as Clinton was in office he pushed through the (at the time) Dem Congress a tax increase on the wealthy, and as soon as Bush was in Congress he pushed through the Republican Congress a big tax decrease on the wealthy (for all of his selective selection of families to show in TV, most of his tax cuts have gone to the richest Americans). I'd say that's a pretty big difference, wouldn't you? Dems seem to prefer to stay out of people's private lives; Republicans seem to want to legislate it. I'd say that's a pretty big difference too, wouldn't you? "Bankruptcy reform" which affects mostly poor and middle class (over 50 percent of bankruptcies are declared due to costs associated with a medical condition, for example), was pushed through by Republicans, fought against by Dems during Bush's reign. That's a pretty big difference, wouldn't you say?

Nothing in your post to Dalakani is persuasive about Bush's team being capable; just popular. The only one you can unequivocally say was competant is Baker, and as Dalakani pointed out, he's only been brought in now that Bush has made a complete mess of foreign policy. Isn't it funny that the man who campaigned on bringing the grownups back to the White House is now being portrayed in political cartoons as a bratty little kid, being shoved out of the room while Daddy and his friends take charge?

Saying Kerry "might" have invaded Iraq if he'd been in office is like me saying the World Trade Center "might" still be standing if Gore had been appointed Pres by the Supreme Court. We don't know, and with so many dead Americans resulting from both circumstances, it's nothing other than heartbreaking to even speculate on. Because we'll never know.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

As soon as Clinton was in office he pushed through the (at the time) Dem Congress a tax increase on the wealthy, and as soon as Bush was in Congress he pushed through the Republican Congress a big tax decrease on the wealthy (for all of his selective selection of families to show in TV, most of his tax cuts have gone to the richest Americans). I'd say that's a pretty big difference, wouldn't you? Dems seem to prefer to stay out of people's private lives; Republicans seem to want to legislate it. I'd say that's a pretty big difference too, wouldn't you? "Bankruptcy reform" which affects mostly poor and middle class (over 50 percent of bankruptcies are declared due to costs associated with a medical condition, for example), was pushed through by Republicans, fought against by Dems during Bush's reign. That's a pretty big difference, wouldn't you say?

Nothing in your post to Dalakani is persuasive about Bush's team being capable; just popular. The only one you can unequivocally say was competant is Baker, and as Dalakani pointed out, he's only been brought in now that Bush has made a complete mess of foreign policy. Isn't it funny that the man who campaigned on bringing the grownups back to the White House is now being portrayed in political cartoons as a bratty little kid, being shoved out of the room while Daddy and his friends take charge?

Saying Kerry "might" have invaded Iraq if he'd been in office is like me saying the World Trade Center "might" still be standing if Gore had been appointed Pres by the Supreme Court. We don't know, and with so many dead Americans resulting from both circumstances, it's nothing other than heartbreaking to even speculate on. Because we'll never know.

When it comes to taxes, one group wants the wealthiest Americans to pay 38% in federal taxes while the other group wants them to pay 35%. Sure there is a difference, but it's not that huge of a difference. If you were telling someone from another country what the difference is between the mainstream Dems and the mainstream Repubs when it comes to taxes, I think they would be surprised how similar the two parties are.

I have to disagree with you about your contention that Repubs want to get into people's private lives while the Dems don't. Can you give some examples? Sure there are some Repubs that are against abortion, but that's the only one I can think of, and I'm not sure if most people would call that interfering in people's private lives any more than many of the other laws out there. There are a lot of new anti-smoking laws out there. Some people may argue that these new anti-smoking laws invade our personal lives. The truth of the matter is that most laws have an effect on our personal freedom. That's just reality. If you live in a civilized society, you don't have unlimited freedom. There are tons of laws that restrict your freedom. By the way, I commend the Democrats for championing these anti-smoking laws. If I go to a restaurant for dinner, I don't want to be breathing some guy's smoke from the next table.

I have to disagree with your contention that Bush's foreing policy team was popular but not capable. If you look at the resumes and track records of those people, I don't know how you could argue this. As I said before, Powell was very successful as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs back in the late 1980s. Cheney was very successful as Sec of Defense. Rumsfeld had an impeccable resume, both in the public and private sector. What else do we have to go on besides a person's track record?

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

When it comes to taxes, one group wants the wealthiest Americans to pay 38% in federal taxes while the other group wants them to pay 35%. Sure there is a difference, but it's not that huge of a difference. If you were telling someone from another country what the difference is between the mainstream Dems and the mainstream Repubs when it comes to taxes, I think they would be surprised how similar the two parties are.

I have to disagree with you about your contention that Repubs want to get into people's private lives while the Dems don't. Can you give some examples? Sure there are some Repubs that are against abortion, but that's the only one I can think of, and I'm not sure if most people would call that interfering in people's private lives any more than many of the other laws out there. There are a lot of new anti-smoking laws out there. Some people may argue that these new anti-smoking laws invade our personal lives. The truth of the matter is that most laws have an effect on our personal freedom. That's just reality. If you live in a civilized society, you don't have unlimited freedom. There are tons of laws that restrict your freedom. By the way, I commend the Democrats for championing these anti-smoking laws. If I go to a restaurant for dinner, I don't want to be breathing some guy's smoke from the next table.

I have to disagree with your contention that Bush's foreing policy team was popular but not capable. If you look at the resumes and track records of those people, I don't know how you could argue this. As I said before, Powell was very successful as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs back in the late 1980s. Cheney was very successful as Sec of Defense. Rumsfeld had an impeccable resume, both in the public and private sector. What else do we have to go on besides a person's track record?

Rupert, Bush and his Republican Congress wanted to slash taxes on capital gains (as it is, they cut them to 15 percent, I believe). The people who benefit most from a cut in capital gains tax are wealthy people who live off investments. The majority of stock in the country is held by a relatively small number of people. Trickle-down economics is a Republican creation (and if you ask me, anyone who has ever worked for gratuities could have told you it was a crock because they tell me the rich tend to be the crummiest tippers). Right now, the rich pay considerably less in taxes as a percentage of their total income that the middle-class due to the cuts in the capital gains tax and assorted other breaks the Republicans have given them. You think that's not a big difference? That 35 vs. 39 percent stat is on earned income from a job, not stocks or other things you don't actually have to do any work for.

The drive to outlaw abortion is in the Republican party plank; it's not a fringe belief of a few members. (Of course, there's no plank pushing for increased availability of daycare or easy access to contraceptives for women). In addition, it's Republicans who have fought against Plan B being available over the counter, and opposed making the HPV vaccine available. "Sodomy" was a crime in Texas (Republican controlled) until just a few years ago, when the Supreme Court struck it down, much to the fury of the dissenting conservative justices on the court. What party do you think they vote? And Terri Schiavo, of course. (You are aware the video tape oft cited was cut together from hours and hours of material, and the sections of Terri staring off blankly while her mom pleaded with her to look at her were not shown to the public?) How abut the one-and-a-half BILLION dollar initiative to pressure single Americans to get married and for married Americans in bad marriages to stay married. You remember that one, don't you? Is that a good start for you?

Oh, and the abstinence-only education in public schools. Withholding factual information is also interfering in private lives.

Look, I'll actually give you that Rumsfeld in a different time and with a different President was decent at his job. But when the people in charge were, even before the invasion, saying pretty blatantly that there was no plan for afterwards because we'd be "greeted as liberators" (right, Cheney. You keep smoking that particular weed), I think it was obvious that they had no clue what they were doing. And a President with any level of competance would have fired them once it was obvious things were going badly. But he preferred a bunch of patsies who would tell him what he wanted to hear and they didn't love their country and their soldiers enough to be honest with him.

Notice how Cheney is trying to distance himself from Iraq now? What's the old saying, success has a thousand fathers, but failure is an orphan? I think he's hopeful America will remember this one as Bush's orphan, and not his.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Rupert, Bush and his Republican Congress wanted to slash taxes on capital gains (as it is, they cut them to 15 percent, I believe). The people who benefit most from a cut in capital gains tax are wealthy people who live off investments. The majority of stock in the country is held by a relatively small number of people. Trickle-down economics is a Republican creation (and if you ask me, anyone who has ever worked for gratuities could have told you it was a crock because they tell me the rich tend to be the crummiest tippers). Right now, the rich pay considerably less in taxes as a percentage of their total income that the middle-class due to the cuts in the capital gains tax and assorted other breaks the Republicans have given them. You think that's not a big difference? That 35 vs. 39 percent stat is on earned income from a job, not stocks or other things you don't actually have to do any work for.

The drive to outlaw abortion is in the Republican party plank; it's not a fringe belief of a few members. (Of course, there's no plank pushing for increased availability of daycare or easy access to contraceptives for women). In addition, it's Republicans who have fought against Plan B being available over the counter, and opposed making the HPV vaccine available. "Sodomy" was a crime in Texas (Republican controlled) until just a few years ago, when the Supreme Court struck it down, much to the fury of the dissenting conservative justices on the court. What party do you think they vote? And Terri Schiavo, of course. (You are aware the video tape oft cited was cut together from hours and hours of material, and the sections of Terri staring off blankly while her mom pleaded with her to look at her were not shown to the public?) How abut the one-and-a-half BILLION dollar initiative to pressure single Americans to get married and for married Americans in bad marriages to stay married. You remember that one, don't you? Is that a good start for you?

Oh, and the abstinence-only education in public schools. Withholding factual information is also interfering in private lives.

Look, I'll actually give you that Rumsfeld in a different time and with a different President was decent at his job. But when the people in charge were, even before the invasion, saying pretty blatantly that there was no plan for afterwards because we'd be "greeted as liberators" (right, Cheney. You keep smoking that particular weed), I think it was obvious that they had no clue what they were doing. And a President with any level of competance would have fired them once it was obvious things were going badly. But he preferred a bunch of patsies who would tell him what he wanted to hear and they didn't love their country and their soldiers enough to be honest with him.

Notice how Cheney is trying to distance himself from Iraq now? What's the old saying, success has a thousand fathers, but failure is an orphan? I think he's hopeful America will remember this one as Bush's orphan, and not his.

I agree with you about some of those things. I absolutely think that Plan B should be legal.

I only partially agree with you about Iraq. I think we were in fact greeted as liberators. The vast majority of Iraqis saw us as liberators. All the polls in Iraq showed that. The problem has been that there is a very strong, well-armed insurgency. They may only make up 3% of the population, but that is enough to wreak havoc. The Bush Administration obviously made a huge mistake in totally underestimating the insurgency.

With regard to taxes, it is true what you are saying about the capital gains tax. But I think there are plenty of Democrats who wanted to lower the capital gains tax too. My main point about taxes is that the differences between the two parties are very subtle when you compare us to other countries. I'm not sure how hig taxes are right now in England, but at one time I think the people in the highest tax brackets were paying around 90% in taxes. Now that would be an extreme difference if one of our parties wanted taxes to be 80-90% and the other party only wanted taxes to be around 30%. Now that would be a huge difference.

If you look at the views of the 15% of our country that is furthest to the right and then you look at the views of the 15% of our country that is furthest to the left, you may see some fairly significant differences. But those people aren't really the mainstream of our country. The maistream of our country is the other 70%. That 70% majority are really the ones who are making most of the decisions.

Even though I am right of center and you are left of center, I still think that we are both in that 70% that I am referring to. If you and I were in charge of the country starting tomorrow, we'd probably disagree on plenty of stuff, but I don't think there would be anything that we would be all that far apart on. We could probably compromise on most things. I don't have any really extreme views and I don't think that you do either. Even though you are left of center, I don't think you would want to cut military spending by 90% or anything like that. Even though I am right of center, I wouldn't want to outlaw abortion or anything like that.

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I agree with you about some of those things. I absolutely think that Plan B should be legal.

I only partially agree with you about Iraq. I think we were in fact greeted as liberators. The vast majority of Iraqis saw us as liberators. All the polls in Iraq showed that. The problem has been that there is a very strong, well-armed insurgency. They may only make up 3% of the population, but that is enough to wreak havoc. The Bush Administration obviously made a huge mistake in totally underestimating the insurgency.

With regard to taxes, it is true what you are saying about the capital gains tax. But I think there are plenty of Democrats who wanted to lower the capital gains tax too. My main point about taxes is that the differences between the two parties are very subtle when you compare us to other countries. I'm not sure how hig taxes are right now in England, but at one time I think the people in the highest tax brackets were paying around 90% in taxes. Now that would be an extreme difference if one of our parties wanted taxes to be 80-90% and the other party only wanted taxes to be around 30%. Now that would be a huge difference.

If you look at the views of the 15% of our country that is furthest to the right and then you look at the views of the 15% of our country that is furthest to the left, you may see some fairly significant differences. But those people aren't really the mainstream of our country. The maistream of our country is the other 70%. That 70% majority are really the ones who are making most of the decisions.
Even though I am right of center and you are left of center, I still think that we are both in that 70% that I am referring to. If you and I were in charge of the country starting tomorrow, we'd probably disagree on plenty of stuff, but I don't think there would be anything that we would be all that far apart on. We could probably compromise on most things. I don't have any really extreme views and I don't think that you do either. Even though you are left of center, I don't think you would want to cut military spending by 90% or anything like that. Even though I am right of center, I wouldn't want to outlaw abortion or anything like that.

Rupert, please edit this hideously naive statement. You are killing all of your credibility.

70% of the country is in favor of the current strategy in Iraq????

70% of the country is benefitting from the economic strategies of this administration?

70% of the country is in favor of torture?

70% of the country is in favor of illegal wiretaps?

Shall I continue? The neo cons have pissed all over the constitution and are the reason classic conservatives are and will be leaving the republican party. 70% arent making most of the decisions and most of the decisions arent benefitting those 70%.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

Shall I continue? The neo cons have pissed all over the constitution and are the reason classic conservatives are and will be leaving the republican party. 70% arent making most of the decisions and most of the decisions arent benefitting those 70%.

i agree with this 100%. neocons are now leaving their 'leader' out in the cold. i don't know if they sold him a bill of goods, or the bill of goods was poorly handled by bush. either way, no one at this point can say they got what they wanted or needed from bush. whether he listened to the wrong folks, or did the wrong things with the right info, i don't know. but this most recent elections is proof positive that moderate repubs felt more at ease voting for moderate dems.

[skippy3481]

Capital gains screws everybody and if you dont realize that then we have a problem. Do the rich use it more, of course, they have more money in investments then the average person. But there is nothing like selling something (that you bought with after-tax dollars) and then getting taxed again. Absolutely asinine. Ofr course, I also don't believe the government should tax you on gambling winnings either. Dem repub, it doesnt matter, they are all crooked as can be. I have a question, and if you anyone doesnt ill be fine because its a personal question. Is anyone actually in the highest income bracket here? Because it sounds like a alot of the servants wanting more from the table(I'm from a middle income bracket)

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

Rupert, please edit this hideously naive statement. You are killing all of your credibility.

70% of the country is in favor of the current strategy in Iraq????

70% of the country is benefitting from the economic strategies of this administration?

70% of the country is in favor of torture?

70% of the country is in favor of illegal wiretaps?

Shall I continue? The neo cons have pissed all over the constitution and are the reason classic conservatives are and will be leaving the republican party. 70% arent making most of the decisions and most of the decisions arent benefitting those 70%.

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.

[Downthestretch55]

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.

Rupert,
Where do I start?
Ok...Let's begin with the "will of the majority". Current polls indicate about 75% of the American people wish for a withdrawl or redeployment of American forces in Iraq. They voted for a "change of course" last month.
So, is the "majority" being heard? Or, instead...after four years of a failed policy are there calls for increasing American military presence in Iraq?
Feel free to tell me. I assure you that I'll listen, even though those in power don't. I don't control this situation, nor do the majority of citizens that have voiced their disapproval.
Interesting that you believe in the "will of the majority" but deny the protections offerred by the United States Constitution that assure the rights of the "minorities". Supreme Court decisions have again and again "constructively" decided to uphold those same rights under the "rule of law", whether they concern a religious group that has "unpopular beliefs",
people of a minority ethnic background seeking education and voting opportunities, or gender equality. Even those that wish to deface or burn the American flag (though I don't agree with doing this action), have been given the freedom to do so as an act of "free speech". Their actions, though hardly a "majority view" are constitutionally protected.
Regarding of the "right to privacy" that is guaranteed by the 4th amendment, and the FISA law, and our current administration's disregard of same, it is hoped that this matter will be addressed in the courts. Those that have violated their oath to "preserve and defend" the constitution should be held accountable. As should those that have done away with habeus corpus.
In summation, please realize that the constitution has provisions that, although enjoyed by all, do in fact protect those in the "minority" as well.
Matters of "invasion of privacy", "suspension of habeus corpus", or any other disregard of those rights, will be dealt with via the judicial system, (and btw...that's not the majority).

[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.