Just in case you missed this video clip.....

[6gun]

<a href="http://bimmer.roadfly.org/bmw/forums/e24/forum.php?postid=4561879&page=2">Be carful how you tow you car out of a snow bank....</a>

Click link in roadfly post. It's worth the wait.....<img src="http://members.roadfly.org/lmankins/bmw.gif" height=95 width=170>

[Your Average European]

It's definitely a funny clip, but what I find even funnier is how this clip is described in various forums around the world: "Proof that Americans are stupid", "Only in the USA" etc. Now, those sorry asses in the clip may actually be Canadian for all I know, but the thing is everyone is happy to think that this is typical American behaviour.

I wrote a series of slightly provocative posts here around a year ago regarding the war on Iraq and the real reasons for it, and in retrospective I'm kinda sad to see that those posts were mostly spot on. America is in the deepest economical crisis it has ever been, and your current government is trying to solve it by securing critical oil resources and taking on gigantic debts they have no intention of ever repaying.

The stupid thing is that the crisis could be solved fairly easily, by implementing progressive taxation and raising consumer oil prices. Instead George W. & Co have opted for a road that, taken to its extremes, may lead to a real world war. If your country continues to behave this way economically, you will no longer have to worry about the Muslims. People all around the world will view events like 9/11 as justified, even wish for them to happen. However, you now have a chance to stop this madness...

One problem is obviously that the Democrats seem unable to present a proper candidate, but then again the point is more about voting against the current government than voting for another one. It can't really get much worse... Another problem is that this is not really a question of Republicans against Democrats; it's a question of Capitalism gone wrong.

If you really want to set things straight, make a list of the 5000 most wealthy people in the US and take at least half of their possessions away from them. They will still be obscenely rich so no worries there. It's not like they have deserved having that much money, noone does. It would be such a straightforward and just way, as opposed to cheating and stealing from the rest of the world and sacrificing the lives of your brave young soldiers. That would be the action of a truly ballsy president, that would be standing up for the people of America.

[JamesS3]

This is called totalitarianism and a dictatorship, something only 3rd world wackos advocate. Do you really want to know why most of the world is jealous and/or just plain stupid? Its simple-- The answer is "primitive superstition" also known as "religion". If we could lessen the influence of most mainstream religions and get peoples' mindset out of the 16th century we'd have a better shot at peace. Blasting America for doing well is infantile and looks more like childish jealousy than anything else.

[CAFleming]

He doesn't know that America DOES have progressive tax rates.
He doesn't know that the reason America is successful is that the progressivity isn't so excessive as to stifle innovation, unlike many European countries.
And he calls Americans stupid? What a moron... And he wants to talk politics on a car board--gee, does anyone want to listen?

[Your Average European]

See, the thing is America is not doing well. If you have any doubts, look at the proposed budget. This "stimulating the economy" [Oops!] is just that. Now, I don't see anything wrong with having a positive mindset, and a winning attitude is usually required to do well in any competitive situation. America as a nation is the long standing world champion in this area, and I see no problem with that either.

America's problem is not with the honest citizen who is working his [Oops!] off, hopefully having something to show for it by the end of the day. America's real problem is with a small fraction of its population who seem to think its their god-given right to make billions of dollars while watching other people suffer. These are people who have gained their wealth from a system that has grown to embrace inequality, and they are scared to death of change.

These people are in many ways your dictators, and your current government is working for them more than for the average American. Now that America is not doing so well, your government is "stimulating the economy" by deceiving the people of America, cheating against the rules of global economics and stealing global resources in various forms. What is so infuriating is that a vast majority of the American people are not even aware of this, or just don't care.

Well, we are soon getting to the point where the rest of the world will make you aware in one way or another. And for your own sake, you should care.

[Your Average European]

I know that America has progressive tax rates. I also know that they are currently too moderate. How do I know that ? Because they do not serve their purpose, which is to control the distribution of wealth. I also know that your current government is working to further water down progressivity, which in my opinion is plain wrong.

That America's success has been partly due to moderate progressivity compared to some European countries may be a historical fact, but it is also one of the reasons your country is now in such a bad shape economically. Simply put, the rich people (whom the current government represents) got too greedy. Taxation as a whole (including income tax, capital gain, dividends and estate tax) needs to be sufficiently progressive to keep the distribution of wealth in check, and currently it does not work.

If you read my first post closely, you will find that I don't think Americans are stupid. I was just pointing out the fact that this is currently a very common and popular opinion around the world. People are annoyed with the politics exercised by your government (rightly so) and this easily reflects on the American people as a whole.

The reason I talk politics on a car board is that I like to hear the opinions of "ordinary" people who have some of the same interests as I do. Does anyone want to listen ? If the issue is important enough, I would say yes. Of course I don't expect everyone to agree with me :)

[rhunt17]

an American, and please don't come join our country that "is now in such bad shape economically".

Let me ask, bad shape compared to what (or compared to what country)? Yours? Are you Finnish, BTW, just to get an idea of your perspective...?

Actually, the U.S. economy turned the corner several quarters ago, and is now doing rather well, thank you. Witness the U.S. stock exchange if you don't believe me...

Are there threats from running budget deficits forever...potentially yes, but it's not the doom and gloom some say it is.

Your Robin Hood approach (take from the rich, give to the poor) is why America was formed in the first place - to ESCAPE that type of mindset and tyranny...

Taxation should NOT be about wealth redistribution - what a screaming socialist thought process...

And, the fact that we went virtually solo into Iraq (with only the British) should show you that the U.S. doesn't make its decisions based on what the rest of the world thinks of us (nor should we). We base them on what we think is RIGHT!

Cheers.-Reed

[Your Average European]

Spoken like a true patriot :) You know what, in a way I hope you're right. I hope that regardless of whether your current government stands or falls, things will work themselves out. I do not wish bad things on people just to prove a point. Oh, and yes, I am Finnish.

Being Finnish is a good thing in the sense that the Finnish people in general advocate fairness and truth. Our days of politically coloured media are well behind us, and we tend to get very neutrally biased news coverage as opposed to some other countries I can think of.

Regarding turning the corner, I'm not convinced. The stock exchange is not what I would call a reliable barometer of how things are going economically. However, a long term deficit such as the one the Bush administration has proposed is a sign of desperation. It's an extreme measure, and it constitutes an extreme risk. It's also way beyond what is allowed in the European Union (good thing you're not European then, right ?).

I don't really advocate taxation as wealth _re_distribution, although now would be a good time to actually redistribute, seeing as things have gone out of hand. You are aware of the distribution of wealth in the US, right ? Top 1% of the population owns 40% of the wealth alone, bottom 40% of the population owns 0.2% together. In the past 10 years, CEOs have seen their income multiply by a factor of 5 on average, while income for the average worker has remained pretty much the same. Not exactly what I would call fair, and you shouldn't either unless you make at least a couple of million dollars a year.

The US going solo into Iraq was basically George W. Bush (well actually I think it was Donald Rumsfeld but somehow George's lips were moving) saying to the rest of the world "We're gonna secure ourselves some oil now, because supplies are running out and we sure as hell ain't gonna run out first. If you join us, we might let you have some as well. If you don't, you can [Oops!] off".

Somehow, to most Americans it sounded more like "We're gonna liberate those poor people in Iraq because Saddam is a bad, bad man and he's really threating us as well so it's the right thing to do". Seems the British (or at least Tony Blair) had a similar hearing disorder as well.

As I said, I kinda wish I'm wrong. I guess time will tell. My only real wish is that you keep your mind open and keep on doing what you really think is right, not what someone tells you is. I suppose one can't really do much more.

Regards,

Your Average European

[Mustafa Rhodupyir Poupir]

GO TO CUBA, you socialist fool.

Or maybe you didn't reralize that all those smelly Eurpoean socialist economies are crumbling under the weight of taxes, giveaways, and cradle to grave entitlements?

I'll take American taxation & capitalism anyday. That is why our economy is bigger than all of the EC combined, plus most of the rest of the world. And why there are more Europeans working in the US than the other way around.

'Nuff said, dumbass.

[54Di]

Consider this:

Tax data for 2001:

<img src="http://members.roadfly.org/54di/taxes.bmp">

Also, the top 1% of wage earners paid 33.89% of taxes in 2001. Therefore, the top 1% is paying roughly 8.5 times the amount of taxes that the bottom 50% is paying!

It seems the wealthy are paying their share, no?

[acvegas]

to repeat it." Ever heard that one? Familiar with Neville Chamberlain and his role in history? Is that the tack the US should have pursued in Iraq? Saddam Hussein's ideology called for one Arab Nation with Baghdad as the capitol. Substitute Hitler for Hussein, Aryan for Arab and Berlin for Baghdad and you get my point. I am not naive enough to think that oil had nothing to do with this, but c'mon, how many hundreds of thousands of people were killed by this totalitarian regime, and more importantly, how many deaths were prevented by its toppling??? Personally, I don't care if any WMD's are found. Yes, it makes our government look foolish, but aren't all governments by nature subject to ridicule? This man was a murderous tyrant who slaughtered thousands and thousands of innocent people and had to go!

Can you disagree with that, Mr. Average? (or is the history of your Finnish people marching side by side with Nazi Germany into Eastern Russia clouding your vision?)

And to suggest that your media has no bias is a completely foolish statement. By nature, EVERYONE has a bias. It is unavoidable. I have one, you have one, the events that shape one's life form a bias. Every media outlet has its own slant So quit regurgitating what you hear on the Finnish nightly news, educate yourself on both sides of the spectrum, and form your own opinions.

Mr. Average, your first post(which is an obvious and successful attempt to inflame the board), mentions the US' accumulation of debts it never intends to pay. Let me ask, what country is always there to lend a hand to others? What country has emptied its pockets more than any other? We know these answers. There is NO country in the world with more of an altruistic streak than the US. I feel sometimes this streak is misguided. However, the previous statement stands as undeniable fact. Now my question is this: what does the rest of the world owe America? I do not know the figure, but will try and find it. I recall reading that if America called in all of its debts, the world economy would utterly collapse. Can anyone refute/sustain that claim?

And to use the simplest, but yet most perfect analogy possible: In a recent ESPN poll, the Yankees were voted the most disliked team in American Sports. Why? Simple, because they are the best, and have been for a long time. It is this very same natural, human emotion that causes the rest of the world to hate the United States with a passion. We are the strongest country (by leagues) in the world, you know it, and it drives you crazy.

BTW, I'm a die-hard Red Sox fan, so I empathize with your inferiority complex.

Thanks for the vent.


Adam Clinch

[Your Average European]

Thank you ! You have just illustrated the problem quite clearly. If you showed me a chart that said the top 1% of wage earners paid only let's say 10% of all taxes I would be much happier. Why ? Because that would mean they made less money in comparison to the less wealthy. That would also imply someone else paid more taxes, but only because they made more money.

There needs to be a balance between high income earners and lower income earners for a Capitalist economy to work. The people and companies who create jobs need to put most of the money they earn back into the game to create more jobs to keep the economy rolling. If they don't, the only way the economy will stay in shape is if someone else keeps feeding money into the market, making it grow anyway.

Until now, this has been the case. America has benefitted from the fact that global trade and financial markets have worked in its favour. However, this rate of growth is not infinitely sustainable. This is due to a number of factors, including growing global awareness and limited natural resources. This means that sooner or later America will have to adjust.

There are obviously those who say America shouldn't even try to adjust, but instead find ways around the current limitations. Innovate. The question is WHY ? To keep growing ? Why do you need to keep growing ? To prove a point ? To stay on top of the hill ? Do you think that if you let your guard down for a second, the rest of the world will attack you and make you your slaves ? Do you want to be a nation eternally on the run ? What point is there making ****loads of money if you're never able to slow down enough to enjoy it ?

Your current government is trying its best to create the illusion that eternal growth is possible. Resurrecting the space program for example; so now you will be building bases on the moon and going to Mars. Just what do you expect to achieve by doing that ? It's not like you will be finding another America. Or Africa, for that matter. Or is it just to preserve the faith in continuous growth ? To keep the ball rolling, business as usual ?

Again, why would you even want to do that ? With your current direction, fewer and fewer people are getting richer and richer. The vast majority (with 99.99% certainty including each and everyone of you reading this) will be worse off if things continue this way. Is this what you want ?

[Your Average European]

>"those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it." Ever
>heard that one? Familiar with Neville Chamberlain and his role in
>history? Is that the tack the US should have pursued in Iraq? Saddam
>Hussein's ideology called for one Arab Nation with Baghdad as the
>capitol. Substitute Hitler for Hussein, Aryan for Arab and Berlin for
>Baghdad and you get my point.

Saddam Hussein was as close to a western capitalist as they come in the Middle East, add to that the fact that his regime could hardly be seen as promoting Islam. This is why he was supported by the Western world (primarily by America) right up until the first Gulf War. I think it was a good thing he was stopped in the first Gulf War, although western support was partly to blame for creating that situation in the first place.

>I am not naive enough to think that oil had nothing to do with this,
>but c'mon, how many hundreds of thousands of people were killed by
>this totalitarian regime, and more importantly, how many deaths were
>prevented by its toppling???

As a side note, it's estimated that around one million Iraqi citizens have died as a result of the first Gulf War.

>Personally, I don't care if any WMD's are found. Yes, it makes our
>government look foolish, but aren't all governments by nature subject
>to ridicule? This man was a murderous tyrant who slaughtered
>thousands and thousands of innocent people and had to go!

I've said this before and I'll say it again: I'm as happy as anyone to see Saddam Hussein out of the picture. However, the main reason for attacking Iraq was not to save the Iraqi people from Saddam's tyranny. The main reason was to be in a better position to control Middle East oil resources. Furthermore, your government lied to your face regarding this matter. They cheated the American people into going to war, and then they tried to bully their allies into going along. We didn't feel good about that, what about you ?

>Can you disagree with that, Mr. Average? (or is the history of your >Finnish people marching side by side with Nazi Germany into Eastern >Russia clouding your vision?)

Now that is a bit of a cheap shot right there. Russia had invaded Finland, and we were simply trying to take back what we had lost. We did fight alongside German soldiers against Russia, but we did not support their battles in other respects. It ended in 1944 when we basically had to fight German forces out of Finland.

>And to suggest that your media has no bias is a completely foolish >statement. By nature, EVERYONE has a bias. It is unavoidable. I have >one, you have one, the events that shape one's life form a bias. >Every media outlet has its own slant.

I'm not saying Finnish media is completely lacking a bias. I'm saying it typically has less of a bias compared to media in many other countries, especially when it comes to covering international events. Obviously we do get all the major American news channels over here, and we get American press as well. Let me tell you, there's often quite a bit of difference. Admittedly, Finnish media covering Finnish activities can be a bit amusing at times and we really don't have any alternatives in that area because obviously no-one else cares enough to cover Finnish news :)

>So quit regurgitating what you hear on the Finnish nightly news, >educate yourself on both sides of the spectrum, and form your own >opinions.

Well, this is exactly what I'm doing. Finnish media is fairly neutral when it comes to covering the USA and its actions. Nothing like my rantings here.

>Mr. Average, your first post(which is an obvious and successful
>attempt to inflame the board), mentions the US' accumulation of debts
>it never intends to pay. Let me ask, what country is always there to
>lend a hand to others? What country has emptied its pockets more than
>any other? We know these answers. There is NO country in the world
>with more of an altruistic streak than the US. I feel sometimes this
>streak is misguided. However, the previous statement stands as
>undeniable fact. Now my question is this: what does the rest of the
>world owe America? I do not know the figure, but will try and find >it. I recall reading that if America called in all of its debts, the
>world economy would utterly collapse. Can anyone refute/sustain that
>claim?

Now this is where you really need to check your facts. There are in fact very few countries in the world with less of an altruistic streak than the US. American foreign aid has always been mainly aimed at promoting its own economic interests. America ranks last among all western nations when counting the amount of foreign aid as a percentage (around 0.1%) of its gross domestic product. That's less than half of the average, and around ten times less than the top ratings.

Adding injury to insult, US foreign aid to a large extent consists of military training and money that is used by the receiving countries to buy weapons from the US. I'm sorry to shatter your illusions, but _this_ is fact. Also, the main recipients are not the ones in real need. Israel tops the list, with a staggering 20 times more assistance than for example Ethiopia.

>And to use the simplest, but yet most perfect analogy possible: In a
>recent ESPN poll, the Yankees were voted the most disliked team in
>American Sports. Why? Simple, because they are the best, and have
>been for a long time. It is this very same natural, human emotion
>that causes the rest of the world to hate the United States with a
>passion. We are the strongest country (by leagues) in the world, you
>know it, and it drives you crazy.

>BTW, I'm a die-hard Red Sox fan, so I empathize with your inferiority >complex.

Obviously there's a grain of truth in that analogy, but there used to be more people looking up to the US than hating it. I think there are three main reasons why people around the world are beginning to turn against the US:
1. The fear that the US economy is growing out of control, taking the rest of the world down the drain as well.
2. The arrogant and selfish politics exercised by your government.
3. Growing awareness and a newfound wealth of information. People are only now beginning to see what's really happening in the world, and it ain't that pretty.

>Thanks for the vent.
>Adam Clinch

Anytime :)
Your Average European

[54Di]

"If you showed me a chart that said the top 1% of wage earners paid only let's say 10% of all taxes I would be much happier. Why ? Because that would mean they made less money in comparison to the less wealthy."

Your previous post, advocating, "...implementing progressive taxation and raising consumer oil prices", to "fix" the economy, is laughable considering your response to this data. Which will it be, the rich paying more in taxes, or less? You seem to be suggesting both. I believe that you would say they were not being taxed high enough with respect to the lower group (Take half their wealth, etc.), if the statistics showed otherwise.

And what about the top 50% number? These were people earning only $26,000 and up. That accounts for 96% of the taxes collected. The top 1% are those making $293,000 and up.

Capitalism does not allow the government to arbitrarily set prices for goods and services. Supply and demand, amigo. The reason fuel is so much more expensive in Europe is TAXES, not the raw material.

"There needs to be a balance between high income earners and lower income earners for a Capitalist economy to work. The people and companies who create jobs need to put most of the money they earn back into the game to create more jobs to keep the economy rolling."

The problem with this statement is that the INDIVIDUALS don't necessarily need to put their PERSONAL income back in to grow the economy, businesses do, and tax relief is a proven way to achieve this. The BUSINESSES these people work for, or own, are reinvesting.

"There are obviously those who say America shouldn't even try to adjust, but instead find ways around the current limitations. Innovate. The question is WHY ? To keep growing ? Why do you need to keep growing ? To prove a point ? To stay on top of the hill ? Do you think that if you let your guard down for a second, the rest of the world will attack you and make you your slaves ? Do you want to be a nation eternally on the run ? What point is there making ****loads of money if you're never able to slow down enough to enjoy it ?"

I'm not sure how to respond to this. I guess that you are now advocating a zero growth economy, and promoting a government or society which discourages innovation, and that's just plain ignorant. You can thank the great innovators of the last 100 years for nearly everything you use on a daily basis, including the computer at which you are silently fuming at right now.

Eternal growth is possible with innovation. Why shouldn't it be? 100 years from now my computer will be in a museum along with my BMW, and I for one am thankful for the people working to that end.

The future of the world that you wish to live in is not for me, but good luck wherever you wind up.

[Your Average European]

>> "If you showed me a chart that said the top 1% of wage earners paid
>>only let's say 10% of all taxes I would be much happier. Why ?
>>Because that would mean they made less money in comparison to the
>>less wealthy."

>Your previous post, advocating, "...implementing progressive taxation
>and raising consumer oil prices", to "fix" the economy, is laughable
>considering your response to this data. Which will it be, the rich
>paying more in taxes, or less? You seem to be suggesting both. I
>believe that you would say they were not being taxed high enough with
>respect to the lower group (Take half their wealth, etc.), if the
>statistics showed otherwise.

Ok, let me make this as clear as I can. If the rich people earned less money then they would pay less taxes. If the "poor" people earned more money then they would pay more taxes. In a scenario like this, the percentage of total taxes paid by the top 1% would obviously be lower.

The problem is not with the taxes themselves (although as a total, you could argue the American people currently pay too little or spend too much to keep their country afloat, thus creating a deficit). The main problem is that the rich make too much and the poor too little to stimulate the economy in an optimal way.

One way of correcting this is to make progressivity steeper. This would effectively mean that with current income distribution, the top 1% would pay an even higher percentage of total taxes. That money should then, in one form or another, be used to benefit the poor.
Believe it or not, progressivity in your country has varied a lot over the last 50 years (although the trend is downwards, that's where mainly the rich people are trying to drive it). This is a question of finding a good balance.

Granted, there are many problems with progressivity, especially if limited to income tax. It's hard to find a good balance between taxation on salary, capital gains and dividends. For example, in Finland where progressivity has the highest income brackets paying around 60% of their total salary, you can get around progressivity if you can make most of your income be capital gains or dividends (which are taxed at a flat rate, as of yet we don't have double taxation on dividends). This means the really rich (who own companies or get paid with stock options) will end up paying slightly less than 30% of their total income while the middle brackets are paying 40-50%. This could be regarded as unfair as well.

>And what about the top 50% number? These were people earning only
>$26,000 and up. That accounts for 96% of the taxes collected. The top
>1% are those making $293,000 and up.

This mainly goes to show that you have a large part of your population (the bottom 50%) earning very poorly. As I said, income distribution is the real problem here, tax distribution could be regarded as a symptom.

>Capitalism does not allow the government to arbitrarily set prices
>for goods and services. Supply and demand, amigo. The reason fuel is
>so much more expensive in Europe is TAXES, not the raw material.

One could argue that supply and demand is exactly why you should be paying more for fuel. Supply is not guaranteed to last, and demand is higher in your country than anywhere else. This is where your government takes really drastic steps to make sure you won't have to pay too much for your precious way of life (at least not yet), even going as far as starting a war. You could say your government is arbitrarily setting the price too low.

>>"There needs to be a balance between high income earners and lower
>>income earners for a Capitalist economy to work. The people and
>>companies who create jobs need to put most of the money they earn
>>back into the game to create more jobs to keep the economy rolling."

>The problem with this statement is that the INDIVIDUALS don't
>necessarily need to put their PERSONAL income back in to grow the
>economy, businesses do, and tax relief is a proven way to achieve
>this. The BUSINESSES these people work for, or own, are reinvesting.

The INDIVIDUALS who own or run the BUSINESSES are taking TOO MUCH of the money out of the businesses, making it their PERSONAL income. There are two options here: Either these individuals grow a conscience out of their own free will, or you make them. I think it's safe to say that historical facts show they typically do not have a tendency to grow a conscience. This is why you need progressive taxation, or something else to the same effect.

>>"There are obviously those who say America shouldn't even try to
>>adjust, but instead find ways around the current limitations.
>>Innovate. The question is WHY ? To keep growing ? Why do you need to
>>keep growing ? To prove a point ? To stay on top of the hill ? Do
>>you think that if you let your guard down for a second, the rest of
>>the world will attack you and make you your slaves ? Do you want to
>>be a nation eternally on the run ? What point is there making
>>****loads of money if you're never able to slow down enough to enjoy
>>it ?"

>I'm not sure how to respond to this. I guess that you are now
>advocating a zero growth economy, and promoting a government or
>society which discourages innovation, and that's just plain ignorant.
>You can thank the great innovators of the last 100 years for nearly
>everything you use on a daily basis, including the computer at which
>you are silently fuming at right now.

I'm actually advocating sustainable growth. We need all the innovation we can find to stay on this planet for more than another 100 or 200 years, so I'm not discouraging that either. I'm merely questioning the motives of a government that's desperately trying to maintain a growth rate that to most people seems anything but sustainable. For that growth to actually be maintained in the long run you would need two things: An infinite source of clean energy and the rest of the world working at an ever-increasing pace to feed your economy and grant your wishes.

>Eternal growth is possible with innovation. Why shouldn't it be? 100
>years from now my computer will be in a museum along with my BMW, and
>I for one am thankful for the people working to that end.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here and assume you mean eternal evolutionary growth, not just a plain economic one. Create more amazing things, make the planet a better place to live, become better people ? In that case I'm with you.

>The future of the world that you wish to live in is not for me, but
>good luck wherever you wind up.

Who knows, maybe I'll decide resistance is futile and wind up in America. Or maybe America will wind up on me :)

[mikesrc]

Who pissed that Finnish guy off. He just needs to come to the good ole USA and live a couple of years. His biggest problem is he's never been to the USA and may not have been in business for himself. I have and going to stay right here. Used to want to go to Europe, not any more. I'll go to ST Thomas instead. Ever 25-50 years we have to go over there to bail those poor bastards out because of the way they think!!!
Mike

[6gun]

DAMN, you ARE average!<img src="http://members.roadfly.com/lmankins/bmw.gif" height=80 width=145>

[6gun]

Your AVERAGE is just a stickin' out all over tha place!

[6gun]

Ewe just don't get it. Small government, low taxes.....good. Big government, high taxes.....bad. Lot's of filthy stinkin' rich people (drivin' em' BeeeEmDoubleEues from U-rope).....good. Lot's of poor hungry starvin' people......bad, or as dad would say "Bad...not prudent at this juncture). Distribution of Wealth in check....bad. Distribution of checks....good. Distribution of wealfare checks....bad.

[6gun]

Ewe jes kep awn rattlin on n on n non bout stuff you no nut'in bout. Wai don chu jes com on dawn year an eye weel bye ewe a big ol' steak n weel tawk bout it. If-n eye caint reezn' wit chu I'ma gonna jes beech-slap ya fer beein such a numnuts.
<img src="http://members.roadfly.org/lmankins/steak.jpg">