Azalin

No, it's an agency of the United FEDeration of Planets. I thought you of all people would have known that.

National level politics, especially during campaign and primary season, are really nothing more than performance art. How well does candidate X resonate with voters, how good is candidate Y at condensing ideas into 6-second sound bites, how well do they come off as seeming 'presidential', etc, etc, etc. Most people don't realize how much theatrics play a role in all this.

I wonder if he was a paid speaker at that event.

I agree that the war on drugs is a waste of resources, in fact that understates my feelings on the issue. My point is that I believe we should hold public servants to a high standard, and treat them especially harshly for their transgressions.

You're sharing your feelings, not discussing merits of taxation. It seems obvious to me that you're a genuinely caring person that holds high regard for others, and that's always a good thing. At the same time, you appear to be thinking with your heart and not your head - a mistake (in my opinion) that many people make. You could always go with the argument that it's a person's civic duty to pay their taxes, but by the same token, you have to acknowledge that it's also a person's civic duty to earn enough money to contribute those taxes. If that tax rate was fixed at 10%, a person earning $20,000 would pay $2,000, while someone earning $200,000 would be paying $20,000 - much more than the person making only $20,000. As Tom and Tasker have both asked, what would the moral case be for bumping someone up to a tax rate of 52%?

Why don't public servants deserve punishment for criminal behavior associated with their taxpayer-funded jobs?

That was my takeaway as well.

The ones that were most recently taken, and as many of them as possible. Maybe that's not practical, but since we were involved in negotiations to free Americans held in Iran, couldn't our government have issued a warning to contractors or other civilians in areas where Iranian proxies are known to operate? This doesn't look to me like it was bad luck on our administration's part - it looks a lot more like ineptitude.

Mutinous swine!

None of mine have been addressed either. On the plus side, he least he doesn't call us poop-heads.

Hey - It takes a lot of money to send a child through college. Is it fair that one student, who pays as much tuition as the next, should receive a lower grade for poor performance? After all, there might be extenuating circumstances - poor study habits, lack of self discipline, maybe not quite as smart as the next guy - any number of things. Why not then have the true achievers taxed of a part of their GPA, and do so progressively? After all, someone with a GPA of 4.0 can certainly afford it. That way all students can have a minimum standard achievement, instead of the top performers getting away with enjoying their scholastic success off the backs of the less fortunate? Sounds pretty stupid, doesn't it?

I get what you're saying, but in light of a pending deal to negotiate the release of prisoners/hostages/etc, it seems way beyond prudent to me to act on any such intelligence and pull our folks out of harm's way, at least for a little while.

With all due respect, how do we - any of us - earn more on the backs of the lower classes? It's obvious that you believe that in order to have wealthy people, we conversely have to have poor people since the wealthy ones got their money from somewhere. It does not work that way. Economics is not a zero sum game. You can not have a free market, capitalist democracy if you are taxing so much that you're supporting some kind of minimum financial lifestyle, let alone what you're doing to kill the incentive for people to do anything other than hang out and collect their minimum standard of living. Sorry, but this is completely backwards. You aren't earning a thing if all you're doing is collecting a government check, period. If it's necessary to survive upon, then you're receiving assistance. If you're collecting it in the name of maintaining some kind of 'minimum standard of living', then you're freeloading, gaming the system, and cheating hard-working taxpayers out of their own gains. And the rich do not earn their money off the backs of anyone. They receive it from people buying their goods and services, or from other enterprises and endeavors. Your characterization of wealthy Americans is largely incorrect, insulting, and shows a prejudice in the way that you view them.

If that's actually true, then it's unforgivable.

Because everyone knows that there are moderates within the Iranian theocracy that we can easily appeal to. Besides, it's not like they've ever threatened to wipe Israel from the map, or chant "death to America" whenever cameras show up.

Hogboy?

With a flat tax, you give more as you earn more. Why do we need to have separate tax brackets - so we can feel compassionate? What makes you presume that extra tax revenue is used for social programs? With a $19 trillion national debt, wouldn't you think that the government is throwing plenty of money at the problem already?

To be honest, I can't see a justification for anything over 20% at most, and that's only with regard to progressive taxation (which I oppose anyway). 10% of every dollar earned in the US is a hell of a lot of money, and I see no justification for the federal tax rate to ever exceed that.

Socialists here would call it socialism too, if it wasn't so unpopular to be associated with socialism. Bernie's taking care of that though, so there won't be much need to remain in the closet much longer. I don't see how my biblical beliefs are relevant, but for the record, I do not take much of anything from its passages literally.

Because they're known to strike back?

How do you know medicare wouldn't have been passed? Remember that it was voted into law by Congress in 1965 - in other words, it was mutually agreed upon by a majority of states, not implemented by federal decree. And of you're going to credit the federal government for civil rights for African Americans, I'd remind you that the republican party itself was founded in part by abolitionists, and it was the republicans that were responsible for the civil rights act.

I'll bet that he used to wear a turtleneck with a peace-sign medallion.

Same here, but I'd toss Rubio into that list as well. Then again, I'd even take Trump over a socialist.

You're exactly right. The purpose of the federal government is to defend the nation and provide for the general welfare. The problem is that "provide for the general welfare" has taken on a whole different meaning than when originally conceived.