When Have You Made Enough Money?

[Care4all]

What giant steaming pile of shit. HOW? Who is forcing me to give them their money (I would be considered poor, btw)? The rich aren't fleecing anyone. People like you just don't like the bitter truth. They are smarter and work harder than you. THAT is why they are rich.




Again, taxing one group a higher rate just because they have more fits no definition of fair I have ever heard. I guess we need to talk about that word because you don't seem to have clue one about what that word means. A higher tax rate on the rich would be fair, for example, if they used benefits derived from tax dollars in equal proportions to what they pay. THAT is the definition of fair.

A fair tax system? Lucky you there is one called just that. The FAIR tax. No more tax on income, instead an across the board tax on consumption. It doesn't get any more fair than that. Imagine how are economy would boom without a payroll tax.

but you are not taxing any person at a higher rate...you are taxing all the income the rich person makes, up to their highest bracket, at the precise same rate as the person below them pay for that amount of money earned....

as example:

the rich person pays 10% on the first $10 grand or so made as the poor person pays 10% on the first 10 grand they made in taxable income....

the poor person or the middle class person or the upper middle class person pays ONLY 10% on about the first 10 grand, as DOES THE RICH PERSON.

YOU ARE NOT making the rich person pay more than any other person in that tax bracket that their taxable income falls?

and so on and so forth for every tax bracket the rich person's income falls.

They are NOT being taxed their whole wad earned at this higher tax bracket, they are taxed THE SAME for all money earned as everyone else...and only for the amount of money that falls into the highest tax bracket, are they being taxed at the 35% rate or the highest rate?

soooooooo, why do you think the progressive tax system is sooooo terribly unfair Bern???

care

So even though we have what everyone agrees is a progressive system it isn't actually progressive? That is the richer you are you really don't pay a greater percentage of your gross income in taxes? Tell me another one care.

sure they do, for the very highest bracket of income, they do pay more....for ALL THE MONEY THEY EARNED in the other 3-4 tax brackets below the highest, they pay THE SAME tax rate as EVERYONE ELSES taxable money earned in those brackets.

When the middle class person starts earning enough money to move up a bracket, that income in that bracket with be taxed equally, for him and for the wealthiest guy, with income in that tax bracket range.

I do not see it unfair at all....for a progressive system.

It could be sooooooooooo much worse....it could be that when you enter a higher bracket, that they tax ALL of your money earned at that high tax rate!

care

 

[Madeline]

Medical savings accounts are tax sheltered, and have always had rules for their use -- rules that are very clearly needed to prevent folks like me from using these tax sheltered funds to buy Ferrigami shoes because doing so "enhances my mood".

I have no clue why anyone's allergy medicine is no longer a permissible purchase, but I suspect it may be because the FDA moved that drug from the Rx list to the over-the-counter list. If that is not the case, then the government must have a formulary that allows these funds to be used to purchase only some of all prescription drugs. Whatever happened, you can be sure Big Pharma has been enriched by the change. Don't bitch at Obama -- bitch at Eli Lily et al.

Only about 71% of the funds in a medical savings account are "your" money. The other 29% are taxes all of us forebore to collect so that you can better afford health care. Buy your allergy medicine with after-tax dollars and THEN you can bitch about the government telling you how to spend it. But as long as you are also spending some of my money, I want some assurance it is being used as intended.

 

[NYcarbineer]

What giant steaming pile of shit. HOW? Who is forcing me to give them their money (I would be considered poor, btw)? The rich aren't fleecing anyone. People like you just don't like the bitter truth. They are smarter and work harder than you. THAT is why they are rich.




Again, taxing one group a higher rate just because they have more fits no definition of fair I have ever heard. I guess we need to talk about that word because you don't seem to have clue one about what that word means. A higher tax rate on the rich would be fair, for example, if they used benefits derived from tax dollars in equal proportions to what they pay. THAT is the definition of fair.

A fair tax system? Lucky you there is one called just that. The FAIR tax. No more tax on income, instead an across the board tax on consumption. It doesn't get any more fair than that. Imagine how are economy would boom without a payroll tax.

but you are not taxing any person at a higher rate...you are taxing all the income the rich person makes, up to their highest bracket, at the precise same rate as the person below them pay for that amount of money earned....

as example:

the rich person pays 10% on the first $10 grand or so made as the poor person pays 10% on the first 10 grand they made in taxable income....

the poor person or the middle class person or the upper middle class person pays ONLY 10% on about the first 10 grand, as DOES THE RICH PERSON.

YOU ARE NOT making the rich person pay more than any other person in that tax bracket that their taxable income falls?

and so on and so forth for every tax bracket the rich person's income falls.

They are NOT being taxed their whole wad earned at this higher tax bracket, they are taxed THE SAME for all money earned as everyone else...and only for the amount of money that falls into the highest tax bracket, are they being taxed at the 35% rate or the highest rate?

soooooooo, why do you think the progressive tax system is sooooo terribly unfair Bern???

care

So even though we have what everyone agrees is a progressive system it isn't actually progressive? That is the richer you are you really don't pay a greater percentage of your gross income in taxes? Tell me another one care.

You pay the tax rate of the bracket only on the taxable money in that bracket. I've been amazed over time at how many people are ignorant of that fact.

And that IS what makes it progressive.

Simple example:

3 tax brackets - 0 to 10,000 10%, 10,001 to 50,000 20%, 50,001 and over 30%.

You made 100,000 taxable income. What is your tax?

 

[my2¢]

I voted “Depends” because I hold the view that in some circumstances limiting a person’s income is entirely the right thing for the government to do. Despite 1st amendment challenges, I am most certainly for “Son of Sam” laws that restrict criminals from profiting from their crimes through book and movie deals.

 

[Gadawg73]

The problem of "people who earn too much" CANNOT be adequately addressed by higher tax rates. For starters, those rates would apply to high earners we do not object to. But more importantly, the taxation of overly-rich compensation packages would do NOTHING to discourage the diversion of corporate wealth into them.

What Obama supports is better corporate governance, or say-to-pay. But as pointed out by Fortune Magazine, say-to-pay cannot work because far too much Fortune 500 stock is in the hands of institutional investors who align themselves with Corporate Management. Controls on the TYPES of compensation for Corporate Management is necessary as well as the levels, and once again, fiddling with the tax code will not work. Most Fortune 500 companies already employ compensation and benefit packages for Management that are not fully deductible to the corporation as "labor costs", etc. And, of course, many corporations engage in waste or fraud, including tax fraud, in order to funnel additional corporate monies to Management. E.g., Enron.


Corporate example - Enron

Then there are transfers of wealth that, under our system, cannot be taxed and may not even be easy to value. These include such things as stock options, preferred stock issues, opportunities to sit on the boards of directors of other corporations and receive Director's Compensation. (This is not a negligible item; the Fortune 500 Boards are extremely incestuous.)

When corporate wealth is stripped away needlessly for Management, the cost of goods and services produced by that corporation rises. The employees of that corporation have less secure futures. The stockholders receive lower dividends and stock prices may falter. The Corporate Management team does not have the stake in perpetuating the business that employees, suppliers, customers and shareholders have -- and they should NOT be left to their own devices to decide what to pay themselves.

What seems to be needed is a upper limit on Corporate Management Compensation and a ban on certain types of compensation altogether.

For starters.

If you own $.01 in stock then YOU arean institutional investor as it most likely is in a teacher's tretirement fund, company retirement fund, police retirement fund,givernment employee retirement fund, union fund, etc. YOU are also an institutional investor. 99.9% of institutional investing is FOR ORDINARY EVERYDAY MIDDLE CLASS CITIZENS.

PLease, learn that corporations are GOOD AND CORPORATE PROFITS ARE GREAT. This is what increases jobs. Send more of the $ to Washington and JOBS GO AWAY.

Corporate profits mainly go back to the shareholders and if management holds a lot of shares THAT IS VERY, VERY, VERY GOOD. That means they have THEIR OWN RISK at stake. Common sense. The more risk you have the MORE you have tolose and THE HARDER YOU WORK.

Enron was FRAUD. 99% corporations do not act that way.
And remember, corporations neverpay one cent in taxes. PEOPLE pay taxes. When you tax a corporation IT COMESOUT OF SOMEONE'S POCKET. Alla corporation is is an entity.
Every cent you tax a corporation from it's profits is a penny taken from a shareholder's dividend.
That is how it has ALWAYS worked. BTW, howmany corporations do you own?

 

[editec]

A truly progressive system of taxation is really all that is needed to deal with income inequity.

Of course since we don't have anything remotely like that, this kind of question keeps coming up.

Nturally it would be far better if the working classes made enough money that they ALSO contributed to the tax revenues, but since we've made that nearly impossible, it falls upon the upper middle classes and above to pay nearly all the FEDERAL taxes.

I especially do NOT blame the upper middle class for being pissed that they pay far too much taxes.

Where I am usually confused is that many of those upper middle incomes types people think the poor are somehow responsible for this situation

They seem to think that the lower classes somehow made that tax structure happen.

As though every trade policy, tax policy, and law pertaining to labor isn't somehow controlled by the superwealthy through the campaign contributing manipulation of congress.

How many people do we think welfare mothers send to K street, folks?

I'm guessing like ZERO.

Now how many K-Street whores do you suppose Goldman Sachs has working for it?

 

[rightwinger]

So you are willing to admit it really isn't a fair system?

I sure ain't. 10 times out of 10 the rich make their money off the poor, often by exploitation. Behind every great fortune is a great crime, and all that noise. Also worth mentioning they depend completely on the lower classes. One day we're going to wake up and the lower class will have nothing, then guess what? We're all going down.

Fair system? Life ain't fair. But a graduated progressive tax is the fairest I can think of. Regressive taxes like sin taxes, property taxes, sales tax, are the most unjust IMO.

Exploitation of the poor, huh? Let's hear some specifics. Exactly WHO among the rich is "exploiting the poor", and how? WHAT "great crime", precisely? Details, asshat. Let's have some.

Here is our current distribution of wealth..

One way to ‘see’ the distribution of wealth in the U.S. is to imagine a group of 100 people who have a $100 between them. Evenly distributed each would have one dollar of wealth. Alas, that is far from the actual distribution. According to the most recent study, Currents and Undercurrents, by the Survey of Consumer Finance (Federal Reserve, Department of Treasury, 2006) wealth is distributed accordingly:

50 individuals at the bottom have a nickel. ($0.05 times 50 = $2.50)

The next 40 each have $0.70 of wealth (40 times $0.70 - $28.00).

The next 9 each have $4.00 of wealth (nine times $4.00 = $36.00)

The last richest individual has $33.40 (one time $33.40).

Given this example the rightwing chooses to attack those with a nickle and demand that they pay more. They also call them lazy, ignorant and deserving of their economic status.

Over the last thirty years this distribution has moved more from the 50% working class to the 1% wealthy. This is not because the wealthy have worked hareder, taken more risks or produced more product. It is because they have manipulated the system to get more tax breaks, more shelters, more loopholes, government subsidies to their business....all with a promise that they would eventually "trickle down" the wealth to the lower classes.

Guess what? It didn't happen

 

[Gadawg73]

We need it to pay for defense, transportation, communications, consumer protections.....The wealthy are the ones who have the money....the lower 50% have no money to give

Can't get blood from a stone...you have to go where the money is

So you are willing to admit it really isn't a fair system?

I sure ain't. 10 times out of 10 the rich make their money off the poor, often by exploitation. Behind every great fortune is a great crime, and all that noise. Also worth mentioning they depend completely on the lower classes. One day we're going to wake up and the lower class will have nothing, then guess what? We're all going down.

Fair system? Life ain't fair. But a graduated progressive tax is the fairest I can think of. Regressive taxes like sin taxes, property taxes, sales tax, are the most unjust IMO.

What poor person did I make my $ off of? What crime did I commit to get my wealth?
I intend to keep as much of the $ I earned from thieves like you that believe they are entitled to my hard earned cash. If you are unwilling to work 70 hour weeks 7 days a week, drive old cars for years and not buy every fad item on the shelf and lead a disciplined life then cry me a bucket of tears.
Wealth is earned. You are a dumbass. Even a Mexican laborer KNOWS THAT.

 

[Gadawg73]

It never ceases to amaze me how the liberal mentality works:

As middle class citizens Bill and Hillary Clinton write off a used pair of Bill's under wear on their taxes, depreciating the value very little for tax purposes. Similar to standing, bending over and farting in church.
Now that they are worth over a hundred million dollars we hear Hillary bitch "rich need to pay more taxes" while proclaiming that anyone making over 250K a year is rich like them.
Makes me want to puke.

 

[Gadawg73]

I sure ain't. 10 times out of 10 the rich make their money off the poor, often by exploitation. Behind every great fortune is a great crime, and all that noise. Also worth mentioning they depend completely on the lower classes. One day we're going to wake up and the lower class will have nothing, then guess what? We're all going down.

Fair system? Life ain't fair. But a graduated progressive tax is the fairest I can think of. Regressive taxes like sin taxes, property taxes, sales tax, are the most unjust IMO.

Exploitation of the poor, huh? Let's hear some specifics. Exactly WHO among the rich is "exploiting the poor", and how? WHAT "great crime", precisely? Details, asshat. Let's have some.

Here is our current distribution of wealth..

One way to ‘see’ the distribution of wealth in the U.S. is to imagine a group of 100 people who have a $100 between them. Evenly distributed each would have one dollar of wealth. Alas, that is far from the actual distribution. According to the most recent study, Currents and Undercurrents, by the Survey of Consumer Finance (Federal Reserve, Department of Treasury, 2006) wealth is distributed accordingly:

50 individuals at the bottom have a nickel. ($0.05 times 50 = $2.50)

The next 40 each have $0.70 of wealth (40 times $0.70 - $28.00).

The next 9 each have $4.00 of wealth (nine times $4.00 = $36.00)

The last richest individual has $33.40 (one time $33.40).

Given this example the rightwing chooses to attack those with a nickle and demand that they pay more. They also call them lazy, ignorant and deserving of their economic status.

Over the last thirty years this distribution has moved more from the 50% working class to the 1% wealthy. This is not because the wealthy have worked hareder, taken more risks or produced more product. It is because they have manipulated the system to get more tax breaks, more shelters, more loopholes, government subsidies to their business....all with a promise that they would eventually "trickle down" the wealth to the lower classes.

Guess what? It didn't happen

Why is everyone that wants to keep their $ "rightwing"?
When I buy a gallon of milk I do not pay more for it than the guy behind me. How do I receive more public benefit than he does? We both receive the same amount of defense of the country, roads, police protection, etc.
Why do I have to pay a higher tax rate because I WORK HARDER than the next guy?
You get more of what you reward and lessof what you punish. We are where we are now because wealth is taxed unevenly. Wealth is earned. You want more wealth you reward it, NOT punish it.

 

[DiamondDave]

No Limits from a government regulation standpoint. Doesn't mean mega income should not be taxed at higher levels

From a personal ethical standpoint you could look at Warren Buffet and Bill Gates who have established their own limits on what they should earn and are donating Billions to charity

Selective equal treatment supported by a far lefty again... shocking

 

[rightwinger]

No Limits from a government regulation standpoint. Doesn't mean mega income should not be taxed at higher levels

From a personal ethical standpoint you could look at Warren Buffet and Bill Gates who have established their own limits on what they should earn and are donating Billions to charity

Selective equal treatment supported by a far lefty again... shocking

No....just taxing where the money is

 

[Care4all]

It never ceases to amaze me how the liberal mentality works:

As middle class citizens Bill and Hillary Clinton write off a used pair of Bill's under wear on their taxes, depreciating the value very little for tax purposes. Similar to standing, bending over and farting in church.
Now that they are worth over a hundred million dollars we hear Hillary bitch "rich need to pay more taxes" while proclaiming that anyone making over 250K a year is rich like them.
Makes me want to puke.

$250k is not what i consider the wealthy and our tax bracket of $250 k to $100 million or billion made and above for married people needs reform....people making above a million should be the highest tax bracket and this should NOT start at $250k.....imo.

 

[DiamondDave]

We need it to pay for defense, transportation, communications, consumer protections.....The wealthy are the ones who have the money....the lower 50% have no money to give

Can't get blood from a stone...you have to go where the money is

Come on buddy, you can't afford a dollar or two? You can pay anything at all? You heard what Biden said, It's time to stand up, time to get in the game.... You aren't an American? You aren't part of the team?

You need to pay your fair share. And, $0 isn't your fair share.

In a society where a small percentage dines on caviar and champagne while 50% fights over crumbs...you choose to attack the people fighting for crumbs

No.. you choose to treat everyone equally.... success or failure is on the individual... and the government in taxation, as it is in legalities, should not be picking and choosing different treatment for touchy-feely reasons....

 

[DiamondDave]

No Limits from a government regulation standpoint. Doesn't mean mega income should not be taxed at higher levels

From a personal ethical standpoint you could look at Warren Buffet and Bill Gates who have established their own limits on what they should earn and are donating Billions to charity

Selective equal treatment supported by a far lefty again... shocking

No....just taxing where the money is

Yes.. you are in support of selective equality... equal treatment when it benefits you or your cause... unequal treatment when it benefits you or your cause...

No... I will stick with the concepts of freedom, liberty, and equal treatment

 

[Gadawg73]

It never ceases to amaze me how the liberal mentality works:

As middle class citizens Bill and Hillary Clinton write off a used pair of Bill's under wear on their taxes, depreciating the value very little for tax purposes. Similar to standing, bending over and farting in church.
Now that they are worth over a hundred million dollars we hear Hillary bitch "rich need to pay more taxes" while proclaiming that anyone making over 250K a year is rich like them.
Makes me want to puke.

$250k is not what i consider the wealthy and our tax bracket of $250 k to $100 million or billion made and above for married people needs reform....people making above a million should be the highest tax bracket and this should NOT start at $250k.....imo.

Why?
Flat tax is the only tax system we should have. If someone works 3 jibs and makes over a million a year why in the hell should we punish that?
Some day you folks will get it. Reward and punishment. We ALL receive the same benefits here from taxes. We all should pay the same rate. The only reason we do not do it that way is VOTES.

 

[Bern80]

but you are not taxing any person at a higher rate...you are taxing all the income the rich person makes, up to their highest bracket, at the precise same rate as the person below them pay for that amount of money earned....

as example:

the rich person pays 10% on the first $10 grand or so made as the poor person pays 10% on the first 10 grand they made in taxable income....

the poor person or the middle class person or the upper middle class person pays ONLY 10% on about the first 10 grand, as DOES THE RICH PERSON.

YOU ARE NOT making the rich person pay more than any other person in that tax bracket that their taxable income falls?

and so on and so forth for every tax bracket the rich person's income falls.

They are NOT being taxed their whole wad earned at this higher tax bracket, they are taxed THE SAME for all money earned as everyone else...and only for the amount of money that falls into the highest tax bracket, are they being taxed at the 35% rate or the highest rate?

soooooooo, why do you think the progressive tax system is sooooo terribly unfair Bern???

care

So even though we have what everyone agrees is a progressive system it isn't actually progressive? That is the richer you are you really don't pay a greater percentage of your gross income in taxes? Tell me another one care.

sure they do, for the very highest bracket of income, they do pay more....for ALL THE MONEY THEY EARNED in the other 3-4 tax brackets below the highest, they pay THE SAME tax rate as EVERYONE ELSES taxable money earned in those brackets.

When the middle class person starts earning enough money to move up a bracket, that income in that bracket with be taxed equally, for him and for the wealthiest guy, with income in that tax bracket range.

I do not see it unfair at all....for a progressive system.

It could be sooooooooooo much worse....it could be that when you enter a higher bracket, that they tax ALL of your money earned at that high tax rate!

care

I understand how it works. It doesn't change the FACT that as a percentage of what they make they pay more in taxes. No one can explain this to me, it seems. Why is it fair to tax you more because you make more? How is that FAIR in any way shape or form? As pointed out before, no one seems to understand what that word even means. For something to be FAIR, there needs to be a moral justifcation for doing it. Because they have it is not a moral justifcation. Because you think you need it and the rich are the only place to get it, as another alluded to, is not a moral justification. There are more fair systems that could be used, and that no one wants to talk about them shows that you may not want the system to actually be fair in the first place. But this line of BS that the current system is fair or it's the best we can do, is just that, BS.

 

[Care4all]

everyone is being treated equally....anyone who makes a certain amount in taxable income is taxed the SAME as the next guy/gal with the same taxable income.....?

 

[Madeline]

Gadawg73 wrote:

If you own $.01 in stock then YOU arean institutional investor as it most likely is in a teacher's tretirement fund, company retirement fund, police retirement fund,givernment employee retirement fund, union fund, etc. YOU are also an institutional investor. 99.9% of institutional investing is FOR ORDINARY EVERYDAY MIDDLE CLASS CITIZENS.

PLease, learn that corporations are GOOD AND CORPORATE PROFITS ARE GREAT. This is what increases jobs. Send more of the $ to Washington and JOBS GO AWAY.

Corporate profits mainly go back to the shareholders and if management holds a lot of shares THAT IS VERY, VERY, VERY GOOD. That means they have THEIR OWN RISK at stake. Common sense. The more risk you have the MORE you have tolose and THE HARDER YOU WORK.

Enron was FRAUD. 99% corporations do not act that way.
And remember, corporations neverpay one cent in taxes. PEOPLE pay taxes. When you tax a corporation IT COMESOUT OF SOMEONE'S POCKET. Alla corporation is is an entity.
Every cent you tax a corporation from it's profits is a penny taken from a shareholder's dividend.
That is how it has ALWAYS worked. BTW, howmany corporations do you own?

Gadawg, the mutual fund or retirement fund shareowner is NOT the individual human making decisions on say-to-pay. If you read the Fortune Magazine article I linked before, you'll see that 99.99% of the time, institutional fund managers side with Corporate Management on compensation issues -- the loss of high levels of direct individual shareholders in Fortune 500 companies has proven to be a loss of some of the restraints Management once used towards the corporation's own wealth.

I OPPOSE using the tax code to control Corporate Management Compensation. I'm AGAINST THAT. Shall I write that 1,001 more times? It won't work and it's too broad a remedy.

When Corporate Management receives certain stock options and preferred stock, etc., they stand IN FRONT OF common stock holders, and their interest may no longer be the SAME. I'm not 100% opposed to compensation in the form of stock, etc., but I consider it problematic and worthy of examination.

Yes Enron was fraud, but no, fraud unfortunately is not uncommon in large corporations. All publically traded corporations must filed auditted financial statements with the SEC, etc. In the past few decades, auditting firms have been repeatedly sued for signing off on these financials even though they were fraudulent.

Accounting scandals - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Audit firms are selected by a corporation's Audit Committee. It's not hard to see the "I'll scratch yours if you scratch mine" principle at work here -- Corporation A's Audit Committee is filled by Directors who are Managers from Corporation B. And vise versa. The audit firms very quickly clue in that retaining this lucrative business is a matter of pleasing the corporation's Management -- not some rouge group of shareholders who complain the financials make no sense. The audit firms have all been caught in bed with fraudulent Corporate Management so often, it seems sometimes as if they are married.

Yes, corporations pay taxes from profits that would otherwise be available for distribution to shareholders, etc. But far too often, the corporation's Managers decide instead that money should be paid out to them as executives and not reinvested into the company's business or given to shareholders as dividends.

When Unfettered Greed dictates a corporation's Management Compensation schedules, it is not likely the men and women who have signatory power over the checkbook will show any restraint -- and the extreme diversion of wealth out of corporations and into the hands of Management is BAD for this country. It is no different from the obvious harm caused by the Junk Bond scandals.

I decline to share my stock portfolio with you -- but I remind you, the stakeholders in a Fortune 500 company are not just the shareholders. It is also the company's employees, retirees, suppliers and customers. Every single stakeholder gets screwed when the corporation's Management over-compensates itself.

 

[midcan5]

There is no real MORAL justification for such confiscatory income tax rates. The argument for such as being moral is Orwellian.

Why, you make no argument moral or otherwise, you only label, even Simon thinks the figure is too high and says why. You merely sloganize.

You are making an argument in favor of creating poverty. Shame on you. It's no sin to be impoverished, but it is a sin to make someone that way. Following your formula with have millions impoverished.

Why? Why do you have this insatiable need to impoverish people? You should see someone about that.

I am ???? You seem to miss the point that is so LARGE anyone with eyes or ears or mind could see - We already have poverty on a scale that is absurd. And if you naively think the wealthy will create utopian riches, you know no wealthy people.

In America today you are normal - maybe always normal. Self centered idiocy is a cognitive bias. Thus the slow progress thus the world.

(Weirdly I was just reading this morning about how Truman had a hard time convincing the republicans and conservatives of his day to support Europe so more turmoil would not unfold.)

For those with open minds - read the piece.


"What is a human life worth? You may not want to put a price tag on a it. But if we really had to, most of us would agree that the value of a human life would be in the millions. Consistent with the foundations of our democracy and our frequently professed belief in the inherent dignity of human beings, we would also agree that all humans are created equal, at least to the extent of denying that differences of sex, ethnicity, nationality and place of residence change the value of a human life."


http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/17/m...&em&ex=1166763600&en=008e5238d37554dc&ei=5070


You may need to create an account - sometimes it goes right in, others it does not.


[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Would-Never-Ever-Republican/dp/1419697595/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8]Amazon.com: Why Jesus Would Never, Ever Vote Republican (9781419697593): Richard…[/ame]