You did and do, schreibe - come on, you mean your hostile and unending attacks on Bush are just personal, nothing to do with anything else? See, when it's convenient for you (read: your side) - you take someone like Clinton and excuse any wrongdoing by him personally, but give him all kinds of kudos for things like good economy, like he personally made it happen (which he didn't), yet when it's someone you disagree with - a totally different standard. If you're going to blame Bush for the war in Iraq etc., it's only fair to blame Carter for things that happened during his watch. And if you do give credit to Clinton for great economy during most (not all, mind you) of his years in the offi...

You did and do, schreibe - come on, you mean your hostile and unending attacks on Bush are just personal, nothing to do with anything else? See, when it's convenient for you (read: your side) - you take someone like Clinton and excuse any wrongdoing by him personally, but give him all kinds of kudos for things like good economy, like he personally made it happen (which he didn't), yet when it's someone you disagree with - a totally different standard. If you're going to blame Bush for the war in Iraq etc., it's only fair to blame Carter for things that happened during his watch. And if you do give credit to Clinton for great economy during most (not all, mind you) of his years in the office - then you should extend Bush the same courtesy.

then you should extend Bush the same courtesy.

The only courtesy I want to give Bush is a swift kick in the ass when he finally fades off to his Presidential Library in the sky.....from which he can look down on the masses an exclaim that history has vindicated him for his ruthless attack on the Middle Class and on the Constitution of these United States!
I do not see any of the "Great Economy" that you refer to . I see a persistant and devastating erosion of the ability for those of us who work for a living to make the old "ends meet". I see the average Joe (or John) in debt up to his eyeballs, and living each day without health insurance, or a decent paying job. I see the...

then you should extend Bush the same courtesy.

The only courtesy I want to give Bush is a swift kick in the ass when he finally fades off to his Presidential Library in the sky.....from which he can look down on the masses an exclaim that history has vindicated him for his ruthless attack on the Middle Class and on the Constitution of these United States!
I do not see any of the "Great Economy" that you refer to . I see a persistant and devastating erosion of the ability for those of us who work for a living to make the old "ends meet". I see the average Joe (or John) in debt up to his eyeballs, and living each day without health insurance, or a decent paying job. I see the Dow Jones average staying up there, and the John Doe average taking a dive. I see people trying to pay for an inflated and criminal mortgage on the dream house that will soon turn into a nightmare house. The Middle Class has always been the backbone of this great nation. I hope to hell the upper .02 percent are able to handle the load after us middies take leave of the burden!
Reguards, and Salutations
Schreibe

Forget the show, read your comments. What you're looking for is redistribution of wealth and that's certainly not part of 'democracy'. I agree that the middle class is and always was/will be the backbone of US, but that's no reason to discount the wealthy as non-people. They employ a ton of people, they also pay a ton in taxes, much more than you do, percentage-wise as well as in $ What makes US great is the fact that practically anyone with will, desire, skill and some degree of luck can move forward due to the capitalistic nature of the system. You do something useful/productive/helpful/better/cheaper and strive for a better life (i.e. grow the business to make money). That allows yo...

Forget the show, read your comments. What you're looking for is redistribution of wealth and that's certainly not part of 'democracy'. I agree that the middle class is and always was/will be the backbone of US, but that's no reason to discount the wealthy as non-people. They employ a ton of people, they also pay a ton in taxes, much more than you do, percentage-wise as well as in $ What makes US great is the fact that practically anyone with will, desire, skill and some degree of luck can move forward due to the capitalistic nature of the system. You do something useful/productive/helpful/better/cheaper and strive for a better life (i.e. grow the business to make money). That allows you to give jobs to other people, as part of the process, improve lives of others etc. The wealthy do this much more prominently than the middle class. When you see a program like Junior Achievement, you can bet that a bunch of money spent on programs dealing with the underprivileged aren't funded by you or people from your side of the street. When I went to special event due to induction of some people into their Hall of Fame - the companies sponsoring the event were companies like Boeing, in the other words - the wealthy side. You keep dumping on the wealthy, even though if it wasn't for them, you'd be unemployed and taxed to death, literally.

Nothing wrong with pushing for more of the poor entering the middle class. It's up to the people to get themselves there, not expect the government to step in and do it for them. This is basic common sense, one doesn't need to listen to Rush to come to this conclusion.

If you're moral, ethical and decent - there's nothing wrong with being wealthy or striving to be so.

Who are you kidding RecordSage everybody including conservatives supports redistribution of wealth you just call it different names.

The conservative rural community of this nation has benefited tremendously from the land-grant university system (most of your State Universities) that was created to ensure that rural area farmers had the same access to education as the rich and wealthy. This is subsidized education for conservatives. I don't see anybody trying to destroy this redistribution of wealth.

The real question is "how much wealth distribution" to support. Some want to call them taxes but maybe they should be called investment. Doesn't Boeing,
large industrials, and other employer...

Who are you kidding RecordSage everybody including conservatives supports redistribution of wealth you just call it different names.

The conservative rural community of this nation has benefited tremendously from the land-grant university system (most of your State Universities) that was created to ensure that rural area farmers had the same access to education as the rich and wealthy. This is subsidized education for conservatives. I don't see anybody trying to destroy this redistribution of wealth.

The real question is "how much wealth distribution" to support. Some want to call them taxes but maybe they should be called investment. Doesn't Boeing,
large industrials, and other employers benefit when those who financially struggle are assisted in getting adequate health care so more of their money can be spent in the market or can work more days thus being more productive? Or would we be better off that they only seek medical care in the emergency room after a condition that could have been addressed has turned into something major?

What about the WIC program for financially struggling mothers to ensure babies get enough protein content in their diets so they can grow up to have more potential for being educated and applying the lessons they've learned. These are the future employees of those tax payer job creators.

Redistribution of wealth certainly is democracy if its enacted by the legislature that was elected to represent the people. Then if you don't agree with it you exercise your democratic right to remove that elected official.

FDR comes to mind with this discussion. Many people called him a socialist or even communists. He created work programs, enacted many other laws and programs that in fact "saved" the free enterprise system, and democracy as we know it. Hoover did not want to touch the "Great Depression" with any kind of government programs. He wanted the "free market system" to fix the massive problem of unemployment and poverty. We all know the resulting bread lines and tent cities called "Hoovervilles". Sorry, but I don't believe much in the "Horatio Alger" myth that perpetrates our society. The fact is, that we are becoming a well defined "Class" society, with the rich and the poor taking their pos...

FDR comes to mind with this discussion. Many people called him a socialist or even communists. He created work programs, enacted many other laws and programs that in fact "saved" the free enterprise system, and democracy as we know it. Hoover did not want to touch the "Great Depression" with any kind of government programs. He wanted the "free market system" to fix the massive problem of unemployment and poverty. We all know the resulting bread lines and tent cities called "Hoovervilles". Sorry, but I don't believe much in the "Horatio Alger" myth that perpetrates our society. The fact is, that we are becoming a well defined "Class" society, with the rich and the poor taking their positions at birth. The ability to move from poor to middle to wealthy to super-rich. is no longer a decent possibility (and there are statistics to prove it)....no matter how intelligent or industrious you are. Today, a family of four needs well over 100 grand a year to stay "middle". Many families of four have both parents working and are barely hanging on, and are close to being the "working poor". Wages have not increased....there are no longer unions to counter-balance corporate power....our good jobs are heading over seas, and we are being lined up to compete with others who think a couple bucks an hour is a fantastic salary. Productivity in this country has increased, but wages have effectively decreased.....we are on that treadmill running our little asses off, and getting nowhere! Too much debt...no health-care...both parents working...... You make your $1200 per month, and they want $800 for health insurance. Come on Horatio....get real!

No, not EVERYBODY supports redistribution of wealth. Also, you're mixing totally different things in one bowl.

I, and I'm sure most conservatives, do NOT support redistribution of wealth as defined by K. Marx, which is what you're talking about. That's a communist version of redistributing wealth, I've never met a conservative who'd support something that's pretty much criminal by another name. I, and according to polls most American conservatives, certainly support donations, which they contribute to in greater numbers than liberals who are suppose to be champions of such endeavors. That would include people like Bill Gates etc. You could call it redistribution of wealth, but there's a...

No, not EVERYBODY supports redistribution of wealth. Also, you're mixing totally different things in one bowl.

I, and I'm sure most conservatives, do NOT support redistribution of wealth as defined by K. Marx, which is what you're talking about. That's a communist version of redistributing wealth, I've never met a conservative who'd support something that's pretty much criminal by another name. I, and according to polls most American conservatives, certainly support donations, which they contribute to in greater numbers than liberals who are suppose to be champions of such endeavors. That would include people like Bill Gates etc. You could call it redistribution of wealth, but there's a big difference between the government forcing the issue and an individual choosing to part with his/her own money as they see fit.

Nobody's talking about cutting programs that are needed to help the poor and the needy. What we're against is the bloat that comes with big government, the welfare state and the victim mentality it promotes and stifling of economy and opportunities such efforts bring, all under the premise of 'helping' people, when in reality it's nothing but an insult to these very people, treating them as useless serfs that can't do anything on their own.

Make up your mind. In the last paragraph you say that no one is against cutting programs for the needy but then you say your against the welfare state and other programs with the premise of "helping people". It's very unclear how you differentiate the two.

I didn't notice schreibe anywhere support redistribution of wealth as defined by Karl Marx.

So now that we know neither side is supporting Marxism redistribution of wealth we get back to the things we are doing in the US that are redistributions of wealth (albeit at a lesser level than Marx).

Conservatives are just as guilty for accepting the dole from the government. In the midwest vast acres of land go unfarmed as farmers receive CRP ...

Make up your mind. In the last paragraph you say that no one is against cutting programs for the needy but then you say your against the welfare state and other programs with the premise of "helping people". It's very unclear how you differentiate the two.

I didn't notice schreibe anywhere support redistribution of wealth as defined by Karl Marx.

So now that we know neither side is supporting Marxism redistribution of wealth we get back to the things we are doing in the US that are redistributions of wealth (albeit at a lesser level than Marx).

Conservatives are just as guilty for accepting the dole from the government. In the midwest vast acres of land go unfarmed as farmers receive CRP payments to grow nothing. Many of these farmers could not make it without their CRP payments. I never heard one of those farmers say "I am being devalued as a human because the government is paying me to do nothing". We have created ingrained stereotypes that inner urban minorities are lazy and shiftless while farmers are noble and the backbone of the country.

Look, there's no problem differentiating the two in my eyes. I see an immigrant (a Russian bum to be blunt) walking and hauling 2 huge bags of groceries from a Food Bank in Seattle and it really pisses me off. It's not that he's Russian or an immigrant, I would even let it go if he was in dire straights and needed help... but this guy was wearing $130 sneakers and that's total BS in my book. This is a perfect example of how a number of people abuse the privilege. I heard of another guy who happened to be collecting welfare, yet he had a house in Bellevue (which is a very nice (read expensive) area around Seattle, had a business he was running out of his garage fixing cars. That's totally ...

Look, there's no problem differentiating the two in my eyes. I see an immigrant (a Russian bum to be blunt) walking and hauling 2 huge bags of groceries from a Food Bank in Seattle and it really pisses me off. It's not that he's Russian or an immigrant, I would even let it go if he was in dire straights and needed help... but this guy was wearing $130 sneakers and that's total BS in my book. This is a perfect example of how a number of people abuse the privilege. I heard of another guy who happened to be collecting welfare, yet he had a house in Bellevue (which is a very nice (read expensive) area around Seattle, had a business he was running out of his garage fixing cars. That's totally different from someone who's ill or injured or unemployed and needs some help to get back on their feet (or needs constant help due to health). I realize that Russian immigrants aren't the only ones that do this... but since I'm one of them, I feel that I have a right to beat up on that particular segment of the population. And I'm very proud of the fact that as hard as things were when we immigrated to the States (no English, no jobs, no knowledge of customs, culture etc.) - we never collected a dime on welfare and managed to get on our feet, learn the language, customs, get jobs etc. Welfare should only be given out to people who truly need it, not a bunch of bums who don't feel like working or lead this kind of life... simply because they can. Thus, to me it's very clear who deserves to get help and who doesn't.

Schreibe may not have specifically stated that he supports Marx's concept of redistribution, but the US left is clearly into that concept, regardless of what they call it. When you hear cries for taxing the rich more and more - that's exactly what this is. The rich already pay a huge amount in taxes, when compared to the middle class and the poor. Marx's approach was to take from those with the means and give it to those with the needs.

Whether you do it like Lenin did in 1918, by simply taking what people with 'means' had and using it for the purposes the government deemed appropriate or simply tax the rich to no end - it's the same concept. If you want to see an excellent illustration of how the Russians did it right after the revolution and have a few laughs at the same time - check out Mel Brooks' version of "12 chairs" - a movie based on a classic Russian book of the time... actually shown very authentically, except for a few Americanizations which actually endear the movie without changing the storyline.

As for US farmers - I don't know any, don't know how conservative their politics are or aren't and thus can't com...

Whether you do it like Lenin did in 1918, by simply taking what people with 'means' had and using it for the purposes the government deemed appropriate or simply tax the rich to no end - it's the same concept. If you want to see an excellent illustration of how the Russians did it right after the revolution and have a few laughs at the same time - check out Mel Brooks' version of "12 chairs" - a movie based on a classic Russian book of the time... actually shown very authentically, except for a few Americanizations which actually endear the movie without changing the storyline.

As for US farmers - I don't know any, don't know how conservative their politics are or aren't and thus can't comment. As I said before, the conservative approach to life is to rely on your own abilities and possibilities as much as possible, have as little intrusion from the government as possible. That doesn't mean that there's no need for government assistance in certain areas, such as natural disasters, the military, and financial & other assistance for the ill and TRULY needy. Simply the concept is to be self-reliant by default, not be state-reliant by default. That's all.

Your side is the only one that moans about taxation of the rich, actually.

As for the farmers - I disagree. They're the reason you're so well fed... they actually produce something of great value to the public of this country and many others. When I & them are talking about welfare state - we're talking about people who contribute zip to society, they're like leaches (except leaches have been known to be useful in some instances). There's a big difference between the two. If the farmers can't survive without help, thus continuing to you & me walking into the store and not knowing what to buy (as opposed to the Russian version that I remember so well where you walk into a store full of e...

Your side is the only one that moans about taxation of the rich, actually.

As for the farmers - I disagree. They're the reason you're so well fed... they actually produce something of great value to the public of this country and many others. When I & them are talking about welfare state - we're talking about people who contribute zip to society, they're like leaches (except leaches have been known to be useful in some instances). There's a big difference between the two. If the farmers can't survive without help, thus continuing to you & me walking into the store and not knowing what to buy (as opposed to the Russian version that I remember so well where you walk into a store full of empty shelves) - I'm in total support of supporting these farmers. You've chosen a very poor example to compare. Got something better?