" Keith are you saying that the plight of Native Americans and my other examples, minorities in the inner cities are exclusively the product of racism, because the evidence simply does not bare that out. There can be no doubt it played a crucial role but not the only. If that were the case how come Asians don't suffer similarly, or Itlaians, or the Irish? There treatment has been poor as well. No the one thing that kept them in this state for so long is their complete lack of motivation brought on by getting every thing they NEED with out having to work for it. Now they were already in a vulnerable state when you consider their culture was decimated as well. I don't necessarily subscribe to the idea that all socialism is bad I am just leery of EVER giving things away with out payment of some kind. And when I say payment I don't always mean money just the understanding that the thing that is received is in some way NOT free or humans tend to have difficulty feeling it has any value. "

" Pariah wrote on Nov 17, 2008 12:06 PM:
" Go to a Reservation or Housing Project and you will see what I mean. A very socialistic system as far as any of us are concerned has done them no good and in fact it can be argued has done them great harm.

I don't know where to start, there is so much wrong with this statement. As long as we view the safety net as "charity" we will have these self proving examples of defeat. What "OPPORTUNITY" was given to Native Americans before gambling offered them a way to break their dependence? Should we brag that we have forced a nation to collude with such an industry to preserve their culture and society?

Native Americans are using gambling as "seed money" to establish businesses and industries that compete successfully every day in the free market. I would extend the example of Native Americans as what we "can" accomplish when respect is the foundation of our purpose.

A government dominated by rich old white men used welfare as a tool to chain those who were "different". That will not be tolerated in the future. "

" Moderate Observer wrote on Nov 17, 2008 6:30 PM:
" In the final analysis, only human beings pay taxes, not inanimate objects. Corporate taxes are just passed on to the consumer. "

This is true in the narrow sense, but would you rather government collect $100 from a business or $1 from 100 individuals. The individuals end up paying about $120 to compensate the business, but it's still less than the overhead of government to do the same.

The problem only manifests itself when business isn't contained within boundaries. A business that incorporates in Ireland will pay much less in taxes, but should that business then be given the same access to our market as a taxpaying American corporation? This has been the failing of global capitalism.

maRk wrote on Nov 13, 2008 2:16 PM:
" Why would any business feel an obligation to a country that takes its wealth and redistributes it? "

Why would a country support a business that didn't feel an obligation to give them a fair return for their labor. American capitalism worked great before greedy corporations and corrupt government took it global. "

" Mark Says "I thought that was the argument for warrantless wiretaps, open-ended imprisonment without access to attorneys, no-fly lists, et cetera, that the population as a whole was expected to be willing to put up with to keep us safe from "terra."


The only successful foreign terrorist attack on the homeland happened with W as president.

Its funny because that conservatives think they are the national security party. I don't understand if they believe this because they advocate war or because they advocate torture.
Its not because of terrorist attack prevention. "

" I would take issue with some of Keith's statements. In the final analysis, only human beings pay taxes, not inanimate objects. Corporate taxes are just passed on to the consumer. We think corporate taxes take money out of the hands of the "fat cats," but they don't. They reduce profits which can be handled by sending everything overseas. If we didn't have the second highest corporate taxes in the world, could we keep more industries in this country? Additionally, we have provided no government incentives for the private sector to hire additional employees. This would be
better than paying long- term unemployment, providing free medical care, and other "safety net" items. The traditional "safety nets" were designed for much smaller
numbers. "