\

TOTALLY agree with you on helen clark.

i honestly think graham henry needs to go. hes a good coach, but we need that consistency we had with the others, even though i like henry alot. i guess it will help with a decent 1st five back in the team, donald was having a SHOCKING time of it. carter should stick a little bit more glue in the team. rocokoco needs to go, he cant break tackles (which is what he tries to do) and hes not that crash hot on defense. i would bring in mesunga. coolest winger in NZ haha.

in adition to my ripping into henry, i think the south africans are almost unbeatable at the moment. morne steyn is my favorite first five in the world, habana is just habana, enough said. matfield and botha shred any chance of winning a line out, and du preez is SO solid in the back of the pack. spies is a beast. best south africa team ive ever seen.

rhys darby is BRILLIANT!! hehehehe

I am giving him time for right now. He has not served a full term yet, although it looks bleak. I doubt Obama will ever beat FDR on my list. FDR started our slide down the slippery slope of socialism. At this point the best thing we have to look forward to is an extended period of gridlock after the 2010 elections. Then the Democrats and Republicans will be too busy slitting each other's throats to bother us. It is a longshot, though.

It is not the responsibility of a government to provide a livliehood for its people. Its only duties are to create laws, enforce laws, and ensure the safety of its citizens. This does not mean I believe that impoverished people should not have access to food, shelter, and medical care. It simply should not be government run. I suggest that social welfare should be done through private donations. Churches should also be able to bid on block grants to provide welfare services (which is currently against the law). If anything the media embraces socialism. Both sides use scare tactics, socialists play on people's fears of unemployment and capitalists play on people's fear of the government. It depends on which fears you believe are more relevent. Social programs actually do make a country socialist. They all advocate the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution of land and services to the government. In other words, redistribution of wealth. It all depends on if it is the dominant force in the country whether you are socialist or not, which is not always clear. Take a closer look at any social program, and you will see that it is simply a sugar-coated way for the government to gain more control over its citizens. That is really only half of the reason I do not like FDR. I do not approve of his actions in World War II. He chose to ally himself with Stalin rather than Churchill and he prefered to play political games rather than actually try to win the war.

Seems to me we were allied to both during WWII. Without Russia we would not have won that war. Then again almost every war is about money and to think otherwise is living in Oz.

I guess I'm a socialist then because the way I see it the only way the rich will help the poor is it you pry the dollars from their hands. Your ideas are nice in theory but the hard reality is in this country the majority of the people with money care only to get more money. I do believe this, we should have let the financial institutions and car companies flounder instead of bailing them out. Yes alot of people would have been hurt and it could have likely thrown the US into a full blown depression but at least those greedy SOBs at the top who are taking bonuses and throwing big parties WITH the bailout money would be on the unemployment lines with the rest of us. They should all be put in jail or at the very least fired for letting their companies fail.

If you can't tell I really do not like how the top 5% of our country control all the wealth. I don't think our forefathers intended for a select few to have the American dream while obtaining it off the hard work of their "slaves". I must come from a different social class than you because I have seen it first hand how companies thrive off the misery of those they chew up and spit out. I don't see why people working for minimum wage and no benefits is right when they do a job no one wants to do. Why is this fair when some big fat cat sits in an office or is on the golf range all day earning 10x what a worker does. Fair? That is capitalism and it won't change unless the people ie the government steps in and makes the changes. You can't rely on charities to do it all. The people of this country need to step in when they see a problem and force the changes when others will not who have the means. "Evil will prosper when good do nothing about it".

Well that is my rant for the day

Amen! Let's get back to Star Wars, the land where if you have a problem you take care of it with a lightsaber. I definitely do not want to see a political debate no one can win

I am refering to FDR's lack of cooperation with Churchill while he was practically throwing money at Stalin. The Soviets even managed to get much more arms out of the lend-lease program despite the fact that Britain's manufacturing capabilities were severely strained. Instead of cooperating with everybody to bring the British and Soviets together against Axis forces, he insisted on playing his political games.



That is not actually true. Fundraisers and mass donations are usually done by wealthy individuals and companies. If you want an proof of a wealthy company willingly dedicating money and time into a noble cause, look at Ronald McDonald houses. Parents with sick children that need to be next to a children's hospital are provided with housing for reduced or no cost. The gains they get from good PR more than makes up for the money they spent. It is a win-win situation. We should have let companies fail, but it would not have put us in a depression. They would have reorganized through bankruptcy to create a more efficient company. The government bailed them out just so they could have a greater say in how the company is operated. The problem was never a lack of money, it was a lack of consumer confidence. The corrupt CEOs should be punished, but not all CEOs are corrupt. This would have never happened if the government had actually enforced the laws it put in place to prevent corruption.



The top 5% owns 59% of the wealth and pays 60% of all tax revenue. As far as I am concerned, that is fine by me. Our forefathers intended for a government that gave people opportunity and then let them do with it what they wish. Anyone can achieve the American dream if they work towards it. I am actually upper lower class at best. I have seen firsthand the people on these social programs. I have seen young mothers that live with their parents recieving welfare benefits and food stamps they do not need simply because they can. I have seen drug addicts and alcoholics on welfare using their money to buy more drugs and alcohol. I have seen people go on to welfare simply because they do not want to work. Who are they hurting? The American people. Guess what? LIFE IS NOT FAIR. We are all born into different families of different income levels. The truly great, the ones who live the American dream, are the ones that overcome that. The government then responds by threatening to tax 75% of their income. Charities are the best way to do welfare. It cuts out the middle man. People decide what they pay, so if there is not enough to go around, they have no one to blame but themselves. Government is simply a group of people that are notably ungoverned (name what that is from and you get a cookie).



My original intention with this thread was to learn more about other countries. Which leaders their people like, dislike, etc. It turned into a thread about Star Wars leaders, so I listed my favorites from Star Wars. No one commmented on them, so please do not try to turn this on me.



ERTA was the largest tax cut in the history of the United States, signed by Reagan in 1981. Reagan grudgingly raised the taxes over the rest of his presidency out of necessity. He went out with lower tax rates than he came in on.



I am not fond of President Bush, but I do not think he had a large role in this recession. He is partly to blame, but I would place more upon congress, Clinton, and Carter. This was a long time coming. I also do not believe that Obama is to blame for anything right now in the economy simply because he has not had a chance to yet. He will with time, though.



At the most, it is an exaggeration. There will be rationing, and they will try to convince Grandma to forgo care through end of life counseling. That is very disturbing.



I wholeheartedly agree. A lot of them seem to change considerably in personality from book to book, but you have to love the freedom fighters.

As for politicians and whether you are a rep or dem. I have nothing to say as I think all politicians are liars. If they aren't before they go in they are after they get there [/quote]


Amen Mickey, Amen!
Mickey 4 President!!

Mickey 4 Prez! Defender for Veep!

Loopholes are misreported in today's media. A loophole is simply when a person or company moves assets to avoid taxes. A person that moves their money to offshore bank accounts is using a loophole. A company that moves from California to Texas because to avoid corporate tax rates is using a loophole. Someone going to a store across state lines to avoid sales tax rates is using a loophole. Until you dictate where people can live, store their money, and shop, this will not change. The wealthy still cannot avoid income, capital gains, and estate taxes. According to the IRS, the upper 5% accounts for 60% of federal tax revenue, the lower 50% of the country accounts for 3%. So no, average worker do not pay the same as the wealthy. I think we should have a strictly enforced flat tax system with no deductions. Lobbying should be capped but not banned, that would be resricting political freedom. Those CEOs still pay taxes, the government still gets the money. The company is the one that gets hurt in that scenario.



McDonalds still pays the bulk of the cost. I believe that the ends justify the means. People in need are helped and McDonalds gets more business. I also donate to charities of my choice and my church. If churches were actually allowed to do welfare services themselves, I bet we would see more church donations and less poverty. Actually, average workers give a larger percentage of their income to charity but the wealthy account for much more of the charity money. In the end, it is their money. They can do with it what they want. Funny thing, every time that tax rates are lowered on the wealthy, they donate more.



I understand the sentiment. Although I have never in my lifetime seen someone use welfare appropriately, I know they are out there. I simply do not see a way to enforce a reform. Just about any oversight or enforcement would cost too much money and likely turn into a beauracracy. I think companies should be encouraged to provide welfare services through tax breaks and PR.



The dishonesty of politicians goes without saying.



Not elligible, sorry.



That had nothing to do with Clinton. The good times of the 90s were created by Reaganomics, gridlock, and the internet.

in all honesty, i cant see why we even have this thread.
conversations of religion and politics never go well, ever.
although this one is not in a negative zone, i can see it getting there, and soon.