Ok so I love polls. And I love politics. So what political party has the most lapband recipient votes? We'll soon find out!!

Which takes me to Tired Old Man. I agree with most of what you said too, and although I brought up the topic of other countries and their huge tax rates, we need to keep in mind that many of them have things like socialized medicine and other things that we do not have to fund.

I also take exception to a couple of your comments about having a strong national defense. I believe that having a strong national defense is extremely important - pure and simple.

I never said anything about having a defense either strong or weak. I believe in a strong defense also, but what the USA has is a strong offense. As Orwell showed in "1984" the use of language is critical to the government to control the masses. Who could be against defending your own country? That is why BuSh claimed he was defending American when we used our offense to invade Iraq. That is why Hitler claimed he was defending Germany when they used their offense to invade Austria. Neither attack had anything to do with defense.

Do a little research and you will find that the US Defense Department's budget is less than 2% for Defense. It is all Offense.

We are still spending huge amounts of money on weapons to destroy the world. We used to have over 10,000 nuclear warheads. Carl Sagan's think-thank estimated that 150 nuclear warheads going off in one day would destroy the world. During the cold war, we had every possible target triple targeted (3 nuclear warheads per target). We couldn't find enough targets for all our nuclear weapons. Now, we are down to around 3,000 nuclear warheads which is still enough to destroy the world 20 times over even if nobody attacks or counter-attacks us. And what good are these weapons against Al-Quaida, or Hezbollah? Every time we try to build a new fast small fighter jet, we wind up putting every bell and whistle on it until it can barely get out of it's own way.

Why do we need to spend more money than every other country in the world combined?

Why can't the USA learn to cooperate with other countries?

Why can't the USA become a member of the world court?

Why can't US soldiers be commanded by officers of other NATO forces?

Why, because we want to be rulers of the world.

I do not hate the USA, but we must stop pushing everyone around.

Countries bombed by the USA since WW11

China 1945-46

Korea 1950-53

China 1950-53

Guatemala 1954

Indonesia 1958

Cuba 1959-60

Guatemala 1960

Belgian Congo 1964

Guatemala 1964

Dominican Republic 1965-66

Peru 1965

Laos 1964-73

Vietnam 1961-73

Cambodia 1969-70

Guatemala 1967-69

Lebanon 1982-84

Grenada 1983-84

Libya 1986

El Salvador 1981-92

Nicaragua 1981-90

Libya 1986

Iran 1987-88

Libya 1989

Panama 1989-90

Iraq 1991to present

Kuwait 1991

Somalia 1992-94

Croatia 1994 (of Serbs at Krajina)

Bosnia 1995

Sudan 1998

Afghanistan 1998

Yugoslavia 1999

Afghanistan 2001-02

On another website my signature is "A CowBoy is Judged by his Deeds, Not the Color of His Hat". The USA can not keep doing bad things while saying, "We are the good guys so it is ok to do it in order to defeat the bad guys."

It seems like as long as we have this system of government, we're doomed to obscene deficits. Do you think that term limits would be one way improve all this?

Didn't the 1994 Republicans already pass term limits?

I loved to chat more Tired old Man... But my family wants dinner. Remember I am trying to be a better wife and mother! HA..

Faybe:

Let me explain two things to you.

First: When George BuSh became president, the exemption for the inheritance tax was $675,000. That meant that if someone died and left one half million dollars, there was no tax. If someone died and left one million dollars in their estate, the tax would only be on the $325,000 over the exceptional. That would leave about $835,000 to the heirs of the estate.

My parents are here in Texas.. My uncle Stanley, in Los Angeles, died and left them $3,800,000.00. His lawyer in California told them the first 2 million is tax free and the rest will be taxed at 40%.

My parents are here in Texas.. My uncle Stanley, in Los Angeles, died and left them $3,800,000.00. His lawyer in California told them the first 2 million is tax free and the rest will be taxed at 40%.

Like I said, "when BuSh became president". He and his Republican congress have since raised the exclusion and it will continue to get higher and higher until it reaches infinity.

I hope your parents can survive on the $3,000,000 that will be left after taxes.

Of course I am being playful.

I can see a few million being excluded, but should Bill Gates and Warren Buffet and all the other 400+ billionaires be able to leave their billions tax-free?

Yes, I know that both Mr. Gates and Mr. Buffet are kind gentleman and will do many good things with their money before they die, so inheritance tax will not really be an issue with them, but there are many people in the multi-millionaire bracket who are not as benevolent as Gates and Buffet.

IF YOU KNOW HOW TO VOTE BUT CHOOSE NOT TO, YOU FORFEIT YOUR RIGHT TO COMPLAIN ABOUT ANY ELECTED OFFICIAL.

IF YOU DON'T KNOW HOW TO VOTE, PLEASE ASK SOMEONE TO HELP YOU. YOUR RIGHT TO VOTE IS THE ONE ON WHICH ALL OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS ARE PREDICATED.

Here is a question.. Can you complain about the idiot you voted for and helped put into office??? By the way.. I voted AGAINST Bush but not necessarily FOR Kerry.. I think in the last election most people I know voted for the least offensive candidate instead of for the most qualified. Wasn't much of a choice....

In Texas everytime you renew your drivers license they ask you to register you to vote. I think they even do that when you renew on line. And you can look up your polling place in the paper or online.... no excuses.

Like I said, "when BuSh became president". He and his Republican congress have since raised the exclusion and it will continue to get higher and higher until it reaches infinity.

I hope your parents can survive on the $3,000,000 that will be left after taxes.

Of course I am being playful.

I can see a few million being excluded, but should Bill Gates and Warren Buffet and all the other 400+ billionaires be able to leave their billions tax-free?

Yes, I know that both Mr. Gates and Mr. Buffet are kind gentleman and will do many good things with their money before they die, so inheritance tax will not really be an issue with them, but there are many people in the multi-millionaire bracket who are not as benevolent as Gates and Buffet.

Well the $3 million is dwindling everyday.. seems the good uncle had a bit of a tax bill.. and of course the lawyer will have his fees.. but all in all I am thrilled for my parents.. they have been poor all their lives but never failed to help out someone in need, give money to the church, give to charities and raise and support 6 kids. The first thing my Dad did was quit the janitorial job he got after he retired from the post office and couldn't live on his pension. So he is finally really retired!! We children have always worried about how we would care for them as they grow old. We didn't want to see them go to a nursing home. Now we will be able to keep them in one of our homes even if they need skilled nursing care. That is one bit of happiness that money CAN buy!!!

By the way.. why BuSh and not Bush.. I have always wondered.

By the way.. why BuSh and not Bush.. I have always wondered.

Ah the mysteries of my twisted mind. Maybe I should refer to him as uh. :faint:

Or it goes back to what Carlene is talking about and some ya-hoo will come over here and take all our good stuff for themselves.

I love the way you phrased that...."take all our good stuff for themselves". Hell, you can't get much plainer than that!

There are always pork barrel programs... Star Wars and all that. They are an abomination, and thanks to the current government the defense contractors have done quite well.

The defense contractors have done VERY well, and our VP in particular. Government employees haven't done badly either. My brother-in-law works for the DOD. His background is accounting - nothing special. He has a degree in accounting and passed the CPA exam. He retired recently at half salary - $75,000 + per year. The next week he went back to work as a contractor. Same office, same job, but fewer hours and a big raise. He now pulls down $200,000 (plus his pension). Oh, and he has enough quarters to qualify for SS, too. His boss just retired, as well. Her pension is larger than his, of course. And she has taken a job in Brussels, with NATO (which she says stands for "nothing after two o'clock). They are going to pay her a cool 1/4 Mil. Government workers earn approximately double what their counterparts in the private sector are paid.

However you have to look at the reasons which include fighting terrorism, liberating the country of Iraq from a CRUEL, RUTHLESS Dictator that praticed the extreme sort of profiling.

Saddam Hussein is in jail; both his sons are dead; his army is in shambles. If Iraq is indeed liberated, let's pat ourselves on the back and get the hell out.

I really appreciate that this isn't getting out of control and no one is being unreasonable or blatenly hateful, which I have seen on many political forums. Being the middle of the road person that I am, everyone has made some really excellent points and I honestly can't disagree with any of the points being made.

I didn't know there was a minimum on the inheritance tax when I posted my earlier post, so that was interesting to learn without being ripped to shreds. I haven't yet looked up probate tax as I am under the impression that this is different.

I consider myself middle class now. I came from poverty, frankly. However when I retire, I will be so-called rich, no matter how conservatively I live my life. I started investments for my retirement at an ureasonably young age, on accident really, because the beginning of my career started at a financial company before I finished college. If I die early, I would love for my children and future grand children to have an advantage that I could have never even dreamed about by not losing a portion to 40 or 50% taxation.

I was recently involved in a transaction that was a bit higher than the minimum inheritance tax, however it was divided by 52 individuals. So, the people receiving the money were not "rich" by any means and their share went from $80,000 to $40,000 in a blink of an eye. It is situations like this that have me driven to want to lighten the inheritance tax. I used a fictional scenario earlier, however my new scenario is real.

About the social security reform, I also did not know that it involved other areas other than retirement only. If it affects the disabled or parentless children, then I would never stand behind it. I would have also assumed that there would have been a grandfather clause for all people who contributed to SS taxes but did not accumulate a "private fund". If it didn't include that grandfather clause, it would be very, very unreasonable.

I have very much enjoyed everyone's point of views. I hope this thread continues.

Tired Old Man that was a very interesting post about who we have bombed since WWII.

On a continuing note, My husband is 80% Democrat and about 20% Republican (as we have had many discussions on the matter) and he believes that we as "USA" must continue to show that we are a world power, that does not mean that he supports any wars, however he believes that USA controls a majority of the worlds commerce, therefore we have power in commerce as much as we do defense.

Ah the mysteries of my twisted mind. Maybe I should refer to him as uh. :faint:

I have not called him "the shrub" one single time in this whole thread. Don't encourage me, TOM.

Carlene: I think I may be misunderstanding what you said about Government workers making more than their counterparts in the private sector. Did I get that right?

My DH worked for the Department of Defense and for the Army for many years. He now works for a defense contractor and believe me, he makes much more money than if he had stayed in even a very powerful job in the Government.

Maybe I didn't understand what you were saying?

Tired Old Man: I didn't say that having a strong offensive, aggressive military presence, as we certainly do, is important. I said that it is very important that we have a strong national defense. I also know that there are some really awful weapons programs, and that all of that needs to stop. But those things are not just happening exclusive to the Department of Defense.

Having a war mongering stance in the world is the last thing I want for us. I honestly cannot believe some of the things this President and his father have done in the name of national defense. I was at the Phil Donahoue show when all the hoopla surrounding the Iran Contra affair happened. (Not as a panelist) But Ollie North scared the bejeebees out of me. We should have all learned a lesson about what deceit some politicans are capable of even in this country - nevermind Germany!

Now we're stuck with our military in a major mess and you are totally correct when you say we've decided we are the world's police. Bush says that we're trying to make sure that other countries are ruled democratically. Well who the heck are we to tell everyone else in the world how to live their lives? And not only tell them, but militarily try to enforce it. It's insane! Sometimes I'm as p'oed at our country's actions as some of our enemies are.

I was recently involved in a transaction that was a bit higher than the minimum inheritance tax, however it was divided by 52 individuals. So, the people receiving the money were not "rich" by any means and their share went from $80,000 to $40,000 in a blink of an eye. It is situations like this that have me driven to want to lighten the inheritance tax. I used a fictional scenario earlier, however my new scenario is real

If 52 people inherited $80,000 each (before taxes), then that would mean the estate totaled $4,160,000. The first $2,000,000 is tax free, so that gives them $38,461 each right off the top. The other $2,160,000 would be taxed at 40%, leaving $864,000, or roughly an additional $16,615 per person. Each of the heirs, therefore, would walk away with a total of $55,076 (and change). If they only netted $40,000 each, it wasn't because of inheritance taxes. There were likely other expenses that had to be paid out of the estate, such as attorney's fees, probate court costs, executor's fees, etc.

Still, I can understand why those 52 people might resent paying almost 25K in taxes. Human nature makes us want it ALL. And with the value of the dollar being what it is today, I think raising the exemption on the estate tax to 4 or even 5 million dollars is not unreasonable. But to repeal it altogether is a very bad idea. Dynastic fortunes breed nothing but trouble for everyone except the fabulously wealthy few, who would literally own the entire country in about 50 years.

Carlene: I think I may be misunderstanding what you said about Government workers making more than their counterparts in the private sector. Did I get that right?

My DH worked for the Department of Defense and for the Army for many years. He now works for a defense contractor and believe me, he makes much more money than if he had stayed in even a very powerful job in the Government.

Maybe I didn't understand what you were saying?

I was referring to an article published locally just last month. Here it is, in its entirety.

Pay is double for federal workers

By ANNA M. TINSLEY

STAR-TELEGRAM STAFF WRITER

For the first time ever, federal employees are bringing home paychecks double that of their private-sector counterparts, according to a recent study.

The average federal worker — excluding postal workers and military personnel — brought home about $106,579 a year in salary and benefits last year, compared with private-company employees who banked an average of $53,289, according to a study by the Cato Institute, a Washington, D.C.-based libertarian policy-research center.

“About a decade or so ago, federal employees had about a 50 percent advantage, but now it’s double,” said Chris Edwards, an institute economist. “They’ve had very generous salary increases every year . . . and they have very generous benefit packages.”

State and local government workers, according to the federal tables cited by Edwards, average $54,849 in total compensation.

There are 1.8 million federal employees in the United States — more than 108,000 in Texas and at least 24,000 in the Dallas-Fort Worth area, according to the Office of Personnel Management.

Edwards’ report — which showed that without benefits, the difference in average federal and private employee salaries is $71,114 to $43,917 — drew criticism from taxpayer watchdog groups and agreement from federal-employee groups.

The disparity between the salaries has steadily grown through the years. Ten years ago, federal employees took home an average of $62,359 in salary and benefits, compared with $36,330 for private-sector employees, according to the May report based on data from the U.S. Commerce Department’s Bureau of Economic Analysis.

National Federation of Federal Employees officials say the data are skewed.

“This information is absolutely wrong. If anything, we are below the scale of private-sector counterparts and have been for years,” said Bill Fenaughty, assistant directing business representative with the Washington, D.C.-based group. “I suggest that Congress make some efforts to get federal employees up to the same level as private-sector employees.”

He said he and others have been working for a pay accountability act that will raise federal employee salaries to what he said will match salaries of private-sector employees.

“There’s overspending on countless issues, but this isn’t one of them,” said Fenaughty, whose organization represents about 150,000 federal government employees.

Officials with Citizens Against Government Waste disagree. They say the report confirms what they’ve known for a long time.

“Government work is good if you can get it,” said David Williams, vice president for policy with the nonpartisan federal watchdog group in Washington, D.C. “The federal government always complains that they can’t attract the best and brightest because of the lack of pay.

“This report dispels that myth,” he said. “It’s a system that is completely out of whack with increased benefits and cost adjustments.”

To level the playing field, Edwards suggests a salary freeze for federal employees and possibly privatizing some jobs.

He said there are many reasons why federal employees’ salaries are higher: steady raises, generous benefit packages, few low-level positions and a highly skilled work force.

But not all federal employees earn more than those in the private sector. Financial analysts, for instance, might earn less working for the government than by working on Wall Street and lawyers might earn less working for the government than in a private practice, Edwards said.

Even so, high federal salaries “cost taxpayers a lot more money,” Edwards said. “And we don’t necessarily want all the best people in federal government.

“We want smart people to build businesses in Fort Worth and software companies in Seattle,” he said. “If we want to keep good people in the private sector, there’s a balance we need to strike.”