Mike,

No problem on the ducking angle. I'm about to do the same. However, for your benefir and that of Tracy or anyone else who may be interested, look at the following link from TODAY's NY Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/21/us/politics/21clinton.html?ei=5065&en=07b1c660076fe5b9&ex=1201582800&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print

and tell me please what it is that you do not understand that -if- Mrs. Clinton, or Obama or Edwards amd a couple of the Republicans for that matter, get elected that they are going to continue to take the earnings of those who work harder or smarter than others and give it to those who do neither. If I took your money that would be theft and I could be arrested but for some reason 'the people' can do exactly the same and it's legal?

Your 'give it to the rich' comment was a lot closer to the mark than not - sadly.

Also, Mike, you seem to define 'developed country' by virtue of them redistributing wealth. That's backwards logic I'd think. Does that mean that if I steal your goods I am more enlightened than you? I don't think so. So, since all these countries have murder, that only the higher a country's murder rate the more developed thaey are? <g>

Principles Proceed Practice; Practice Pronounces Principles. (Just made that up <s> - how that for an alliteration?)

Also, there IS a reasonable place for taxation. No argument there. It's all the nanny state, feel-good nonsense that is driven by the notion that the state must be responsible for personal issues (like deciding the temp in your house a la California). It is not.

During the 'every man for himself' days there was a concomitant adherance to solid (Christian-based/sourced) values such as self-reliance, thrift, honesty, keeping one's word, etc.. People did NOT expect their neighbor's to carry their load.

Go back to the second winter after the Pilgrims landed and you will find they had plenty. A huge number of them perished after the first year because thay adopted the socialist notion that they would share all things equally and the lazy let others do all the work. After that they changed the laws and gave each their own plot of land and they all produced enough and more. They had the land before but the new notion was that if you don't work you don't eat. There are far too many people who expect me to feed them in today's society and they need to get off their vcollective butts and go work for their own goods.

IMO the absolute best thing we could do would be to abolish all the give-away programs and as soon as their bellys were empty I think you'd be amazed at how many folks could find work.

There is NOTHING wrong with one individual helping another - like what happend to you this last week. That is a GOOD thing. But as far as I can see, the minute one expects the state to perform their works of charity you a) add a layer of indifference, b) add a layer of cost and c) add a layer of inneficiency. Which of those is a good thing again? <s>

>Tracy, Doug,
>
>"Give it all to the rich" was a flippant phrase and I am sorry it was taken literally. But I do believe a certain amount of wealth redistribution is a principle of a developed society. Those with more financial means help those with less (or none). Can you name a developed country where that doesn't happen? In fact the U.S. probably does less of it than any of the others. And yet a lot of Americans are still disgruntled, resenting every nickel pried from their fingers. Whatever happened to the idea that we're all in this together?
>
>Besides, if everyone keeps everything they earn, who pays for public services like roads, police, fire departments, the military, schools, etc. etc. etc.? I am sure you are not suggesting a return to frontier days when it was every man for himself. Even then they quickly recognized the need for civic infrastructure. The only real debate is how far it should go. Reasonable people can disagree about that.
>
>I know my views on this are fundamentally different from yours and Doug's. And I guess I don't feel like a long debate at the moment. So I'm going to get back to work. I'm not upset, just ducking out of this at least for now.
>
>
>>Give what all to the rich exactly? What are they getting that you are not and that they have not earned themselves?
>>
>>To me, socialist is anyone who wants to put into place redistribution of wealth. If I earn it, I keep it. It is not up to anyone, not even the government, to decide that what I earn should go to someone else. If the populace who do not work or do not work to the best of their abilities are given anything as a handout, then where is the incentive to work harder or longer or even to work at all? Why should someone else be rewarded for my efforts (of the efforts of a rich person I should write as I am not rich).
>>
>>
>>
>>>Not to drift the thread or anything, but -- socialist? Why do you say that? Is anyone who doesn't want to give it all to the rich a socialist?
>>>
>>>Never mind. You've still got me respondng to easy provocations after all these years <g>.
>>>
>>>
>>>>Charles,
>>>>
>>>>>Oh, I don't think you have to look that far. Hillary Clinton is running for President ! <bg>
>>>>
>>>>Ugh.. Better her than Obama. He's way more of a socialist than she is, though that's not saying much.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Charles,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>LOL
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Yeah, well, with what is going on over in the middle east these days...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Best,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>DD
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Well, good to see you're still around. I was afraid The Rapture may have come and I didn't get the memo <s>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Charles,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Thanks. Mostly it was to make sure Beane knew I was going to harass him as soon as he got over his 'event'. (You ready to rumble Mike? *bg*)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>The other reason I decided to absent myself from the forum for a while is that, like Mike's proclivity for the sauce, I have to make sure I don't get swallowed up in all the fun going on around here. I expect to drop by every so often and toss a thought bomb or two just to get folks arguing over the same old territory one more time - far too easy. (You'd think folks would have figured out how to move some of these discussions forward by now *G*) Imagine, some still do not believe in God (they will some day - I hope not in a bad way) and some still actually belive that being a liberal/socialist is a good thing. Tsk tsk..
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>How's that? *G*
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Love God with all of your heart, mind soul & strength. And love your neighbor as yourself.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>:)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Spoken with great wisdom. Nice to see you back, Doug. CIS Foxforum was long ago.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Mike Beane's situation is reason for this post.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>It seems getting older, retiring from a job, undergoing a "fractuosity" like a heart attack, cancer, or anything that may take you to the intersection of life and death causes one to ask, "what matters?"
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Having been almost killed on numerous occasions, growing older, retiring from one job, etc, I've given it a lot of thought. I have come to the conclusion that family, friends and making things better than they would otherwise be, without you, are the only things that REALLY matter. Everything else is fluff or distraction, it seems.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>As I was getting closer to retirement, I asked myself, "did I make a difference?" I think I did, and I continue to do so in my chosen field. It is my passion, so it's easy to do. The next hard question is really the same question for life. I've heard it said that few people will say, on their deathbed, "I wish I had worked more." I've been a work-a-holic all my life, or so I'm told. So, I've been working on spending time with others who matter. It's like I tell my wife, God's not through with me yet!<g>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Mike, this is for you, buddy. What matters in life?