<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Voting for American Interests</title>
	<atom:link href="http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2006/06/27/voting-rights-act/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2006/06/27/voting-rights-act/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 16 Mar 2009 18:49:09 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: RedBeard</title>
		<link>http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2006/06/27/voting-rights-act/comment-page-1/#comment-72615</link>
		<dc:creator>RedBeard</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 05 Jul 2006 10:24:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lashawnbarber.com/?p=2028#comment-72615</guid>
		<description>Just so we&#039;re clearly understanding this, Anomalocaris supports confiscating money from those to whom it belongs and giving it to those who have done nothing to earn it.  On the street, that would be called a mugging.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Just so we&#8217;re clearly understanding this, Anomalocaris supports confiscating money from those to whom it belongs and giving it to those who have done nothing to earn it.  On the street, that would be called a mugging.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tyrone</title>
		<link>http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2006/06/27/voting-rights-act/comment-page-1/#comment-72378</link>
		<dc:creator>Tyrone</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 02 Jul 2006 23:08:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lashawnbarber.com/?p=2028#comment-72378</guid>
		<description>Michael Savage is right as usual. It comes down to language, culture and borders. That is the fundamental building blocks of any country not just the United States. In the liberal&#039;s eye however, it&#039;s a different story. If you support securing the borders, your labeled a RACIST. If you support English has the officially language, liberals label you a RACIST. If you defend the culture, liberals label you a RACIST. The bottom line is this. How can liberals say they support America, when they hate the core values for which it stand for?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Michael Savage is right as usual. It comes down to language, culture and borders. That is the fundamental building blocks of any country not just the United States. In the liberal&#8217;s eye however, it&#8217;s a different story. If you support securing the borders, your labeled a RACIST. If you support English has the officially language, liberals label you a RACIST. If you defend the culture, liberals label you a RACIST. The bottom line is this. How can liberals say they support America, when they hate the core values for which it stand for?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Doug</title>
		<link>http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2006/06/27/voting-rights-act/comment-page-1/#comment-72353</link>
		<dc:creator>Doug</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 01 Jul 2006 05:15:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lashawnbarber.com/?p=2028#comment-72353</guid>
		<description>La shawn, because people might visit Savage from your mention here, as a public service let me point out that he has the beheading videos/pictures right on his front page. That is too much for me. Any one who finds such images upsetting might want to steer clear and just listen to the radio show instead.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>La shawn, because people might visit Savage from your mention here, as a public service let me point out that he has the beheading videos/pictures right on his front page. That is too much for me. Any one who finds such images upsetting might want to steer clear and just listen to the radio show instead.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anomalocaris</title>
		<link>http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2006/06/27/voting-rights-act/comment-page-1/#comment-72323</link>
		<dc:creator>Anomalocaris</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 30 Jun 2006 16:32:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lashawnbarber.com/?p=2028#comment-72323</guid>
		<description>Heliotrope, you make a lot of statements, and I could rebut all of them if I wante to, but I&#039;ll limit myself to just this: Conservatives love to cite President Reagan&#039;s tax cuts as ushering in a period of economic growth. What they conveniently forget is that after Reagan&#039;s initial tax cuts were a series of nine tax increases under the Reagan administration that were made necessary by the Reagan deficts. (Back then, the Republican party was stil a grownup party that recognized the importance of keeping deficits small.) And we had even more economic growth under President Clinton, without tax cuts.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Heliotrope, you make a lot of statements, and I could rebut all of them if I wante to, but I&#8217;ll limit myself to just this: Conservatives love to cite President Reagan&#8217;s tax cuts as ushering in a period of economic growth. What they conveniently forget is that after Reagan&#8217;s initial tax cuts were a series of nine tax increases under the Reagan administration that were made necessary by the Reagan deficts. (Back then, the Republican party was stil a grownup party that recognized the importance of keeping deficits small.) And we had even more economic growth under President Clinton, without tax cuts.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Watcher of Weasels</title>
		<link>http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2006/06/27/voting-rights-act/comment-page-1/#comment-72291</link>
		<dc:creator>Watcher of Weasels</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 30 Jun 2006 06:44:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lashawnbarber.com/?p=2028#comment-72291</guid>
		<description>&lt;strong&gt;The Council Has Spoken!&lt;/strong&gt;

First off...&#160; any spambots reading this should immediately go here, here, here,&#160; and here.&#160; Die spambots, die!&#160; And now...&#160; the winning entries in the Watcher&#039;s Council vote for this week are The Dance of Escalation and Reacti...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>The Council Has Spoken!</strong></p>
<p>First off&#8230;&nbsp; any spambots reading this should immediately go here, here, here,&nbsp; and here.&nbsp; Die spambots, die!&nbsp; And now&#8230;&nbsp; the winning entries in the Watcher&#8217;s Council vote for this week are The Dance of Escalation and Reacti&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Heliotrope</title>
		<link>http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2006/06/27/voting-rights-act/comment-page-1/#comment-72272</link>
		<dc:creator>Heliotrope</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 30 Jun 2006 00:10:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lashawnbarber.com/?p=2028#comment-72272</guid>
		<description>#33,34,35 Anomalocaris: &quot;Heliotrope, you are vastly misinformed about the operation of foundations.&quot;

Sorry, but I sit on the board of two huge ones. If you need an idiot&#039;s guide to foundation law, I can probably round one up.

Let&#039;s talk Bill Gates. $30Billion foundation before Buffet. Funds invested with Buffet direction that yield nearly $10Billion per year. Operation overhead permits a safe $1Billion per year for operating overhead. Daddy Gates, Bill and Melinda are board members. They can add their three minor children under tax law.

I suspect they can manage just fine on that type of income from a tax exempt source. If you have an income of (just) $1Million (a huge drop from $1Billion) a year and if you work 50 hour weeks for 52 weeks a year, your hourly income is $385. And you think that Bill and Melinda Gates go to the airport and scrounge for seats on Southwest? Their need for bodyguards and efficiency alone preclude it.

I was alive and attending to business during the Johnson administration when old Lyndon promised &quot;guns and butter&quot; (read: no war tax) and a &quot;great society&quot; (read: increased welfare/entitlements) simultaneously. It was Nixon who followed Teddy Kennedy&#039;s advice for price controls, froze salary increases and introduced medicare which threw the country into a spiral of inflation that Carter was able to fuel into interest rates above 20%.

Reagan&#039;s supply side tax cuts crushed the inflation and led to the longest period of sustained economic growth and prosperity  in the history of the nation. George Bush (1) raised taxes to try to get along with the Democratic Congress and ...poof!...the growth stopped and Clinton and friends turned him out of the White House. Republicans reversed the 40 year control of Congress two years later and put the &quot;Contract With America&quot; into effect. No new big tax program was enacted. Welfare was cut and signed by Clinton. The budget started to come into &quot;balance.&quot; Then the dot.com bubble burst and NASDAQ and the stock markets went south. The fall out was first felt in the summer of 2000, just in time for G.W. Bush to preside over the downturn. It was neither caused by Clinton or Bush and neither Clinton nor Bush could have done much to prevent it. 

Wars cost money. I agree. I have a thesis for you to read on the subject that is still well regarded, even after 40 years.

Name one instance in the history of any country anywhere in the world at any time in history that taxed itself into prosperity.

I certainly don&#039;t mind being called a fool. I have had some high powered folks toss the epithet at me. But I have never lost an argument of economics based on the facts of mathematics. I don&#039;t make the rules, I just do the numbers. (And unlike the professional politicians, I don&#039;t depend the mystic predictions of Madam Rosy Scenario.)

For years, Social Security was a separate fund that was &quot;off-budget.&quot; When it was reworked in the early 1980&#039;s, it was accumulating huge surpluses that were to be placed &quot;in trust&quot; for the time when payouts would exceed income. (At the time, that was thought to be about 2025.) Congress mandated that the funds be &quot;invested&quot; in government bonds. Therefore, by slight of hand, the surplus became part of the national debt through bonded indebtedness. In the late 1980&#039;s, Congress decided to skip the &quot;bonded indebtedness&quot; step and moved the social security fund to the general income fund and used the surplus to fund current costs of government. It was a windfall of cash that the porkers in Congress tossed around like the proverbial drunken sailor.

I could go on, but why? Your fealty to socialism and the Democrat politburo is secure and you are not about to be confused by the facts. I can certainly absorb the pelting of your confused charges, but it is not particularly informing.

Have a good day.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>#33,34,35 Anomalocaris: &#8220;Heliotrope, you are vastly misinformed about the operation of foundations.&#8221;</p>
<p>Sorry, but I sit on the board of two huge ones. If you need an idiot&#8217;s guide to foundation law, I can probably round one up.</p>
<p>Let&#8217;s talk Bill Gates. $30Billion foundation before Buffet. Funds invested with Buffet direction that yield nearly $10Billion per year. Operation overhead permits a safe $1Billion per year for operating overhead. Daddy Gates, Bill and Melinda are board members. They can add their three minor children under tax law.</p>
<p>I suspect they can manage just fine on that type of income from a tax exempt source. If you have an income of (just) $1Million (a huge drop from $1Billion) a year and if you work 50 hour weeks for 52 weeks a year, your hourly income is $385. And you think that Bill and Melinda Gates go to the airport and scrounge for seats on Southwest? Their need for bodyguards and efficiency alone preclude it.</p>
<p>I was alive and attending to business during the Johnson administration when old Lyndon promised &#8220;guns and butter&#8221; (read: no war tax) and a &#8220;great society&#8221; (read: increased welfare/entitlements) simultaneously. It was Nixon who followed Teddy Kennedy&#8217;s advice for price controls, froze salary increases and introduced medicare which threw the country into a spiral of inflation that Carter was able to fuel into interest rates above 20%.</p>
<p>Reagan&#8217;s supply side tax cuts crushed the inflation and led to the longest period of sustained economic growth and prosperity  in the history of the nation. George Bush (1) raised taxes to try to get along with the Democratic Congress and &#8230;poof!&#8230;the growth stopped and Clinton and friends turned him out of the White House. Republicans reversed the 40 year control of Congress two years later and put the &#8220;Contract With America&#8221; into effect. No new big tax program was enacted. Welfare was cut and signed by Clinton. The budget started to come into &#8220;balance.&#8221; Then the dot.com bubble burst and NASDAQ and the stock markets went south. The fall out was first felt in the summer of 2000, just in time for G.W. Bush to preside over the downturn. It was neither caused by Clinton or Bush and neither Clinton nor Bush could have done much to prevent it. </p>
<p>Wars cost money. I agree. I have a thesis for you to read on the subject that is still well regarded, even after 40 years.</p>
<p>Name one instance in the history of any country anywhere in the world at any time in history that taxed itself into prosperity.</p>
<p>I certainly don&#8217;t mind being called a fool. I have had some high powered folks toss the epithet at me. But I have never lost an argument of economics based on the facts of mathematics. I don&#8217;t make the rules, I just do the numbers. (And unlike the professional politicians, I don&#8217;t depend the mystic predictions of Madam Rosy Scenario.)</p>
<p>For years, Social Security was a separate fund that was &#8220;off-budget.&#8221; When it was reworked in the early 1980&#8217;s, it was accumulating huge surpluses that were to be placed &#8220;in trust&#8221; for the time when payouts would exceed income. (At the time, that was thought to be about 2025.) Congress mandated that the funds be &#8220;invested&#8221; in government bonds. Therefore, by slight of hand, the surplus became part of the national debt through bonded indebtedness. In the late 1980&#8217;s, Congress decided to skip the &#8220;bonded indebtedness&#8221; step and moved the social security fund to the general income fund and used the surplus to fund current costs of government. It was a windfall of cash that the porkers in Congress tossed around like the proverbial drunken sailor.</p>
<p>I could go on, but why? Your fealty to socialism and the Democrat politburo is secure and you are not about to be confused by the facts. I can certainly absorb the pelting of your confused charges, but it is not particularly informing.</p>
<p>Have a good day.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: J. Peden</title>
		<link>http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2006/06/27/voting-rights-act/comment-page-1/#comment-72198</link>
		<dc:creator>J. Peden</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 Jun 2006 08:15:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lashawnbarber.com/?p=2028#comment-72198</guid>
		<description>How is anyone going to understand everyone unless we have a national language? This does not require that people not speak other languages. English is also the language the world. Something has to be, or will be. It&#039;s English, so what? If it was something else and I needed to operate world-wide, I&#039;d learn that language. So what, again? Are Hispanics allegedly the only people in the world who are unable to learn another language? I don&#039;t think so....But the Democrats do. Got their message?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>How is anyone going to understand everyone unless we have a national language? This does not require that people not speak other languages. English is also the language the world. Something has to be, or will be. It&#8217;s English, so what? If it was something else and I needed to operate world-wide, I&#8217;d learn that language. So what, again? Are Hispanics allegedly the only people in the world who are unable to learn another language? I don&#8217;t think so&#8230;.But the Democrats do. Got their message?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anomalocaris</title>
		<link>http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2006/06/27/voting-rights-act/comment-page-1/#comment-72196</link>
		<dc:creator>Anomalocaris</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 Jun 2006 04:52:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lashawnbarber.com/?p=2028#comment-72196</guid>
		<description>The Democratic Party proposal, rejected by the Republicans, was to immediately raise the Estate Tax threshhold to $3.5 million per taxpayer, allowing couples to pass $7 million to their children free of estate taxes. If this had been adopted, then estates of persons dying in 2005 wold have been covered under this rule, but thanks to the Republicans, these estates paid taxes starting at just 1.5 million. 

There are already special estate tax breaks for family farms and family businesses. Consequently, despite the endless bleating of the Republicans, there are no family farms that had to be sold in order to pay estate taxes. It&#039;s a complete myth.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Democratic Party proposal, rejected by the Republicans, was to immediately raise the Estate Tax threshhold to $3.5 million per taxpayer, allowing couples to pass $7 million to their children free of estate taxes. If this had been adopted, then estates of persons dying in 2005 wold have been covered under this rule, but thanks to the Republicans, these estates paid taxes starting at just 1.5 million. </p>
<p>There are already special estate tax breaks for family farms and family businesses. Consequently, despite the endless bleating of the Republicans, there are no family farms that had to be sold in order to pay estate taxes. It&#8217;s a complete myth.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anomalocaris</title>
		<link>http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2006/06/27/voting-rights-act/comment-page-1/#comment-72195</link>
		<dc:creator>Anomalocaris</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 Jun 2006 04:47:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lashawnbarber.com/?p=2028#comment-72195</guid>
		<description>Heliotrope, you are vastly misinformed about the operation of foundations. Before you make wild statements, how many jets does the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation have? All right then, you shouldn&#039;t have brought it up. Salaries of foundation administrators is measured in hundreds of thousands at most, in contrast to tens of billions (with a B) that Mr. and Mrs. Gates and Mr. Buffet have given and are giving to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. The Gateses set up The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to help fight disease and promote international development among the world&#039;s poor. It was not set up to provide cushy jobs for their children.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Heliotrope, you are vastly misinformed about the operation of foundations. Before you make wild statements, how many jets does the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation have? All right then, you shouldn&#8217;t have brought it up. Salaries of foundation administrators is measured in hundreds of thousands at most, in contrast to tens of billions (with a B) that Mr. and Mrs. Gates and Mr. Buffet have given and are giving to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. The Gateses set up The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to help fight disease and promote international development among the world&#8217;s poor. It was not set up to provide cushy jobs for their children.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anomalocaris</title>
		<link>http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2006/06/27/voting-rights-act/comment-page-1/#comment-72193</link>
		<dc:creator>Anomalocaris</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 Jun 2006 04:39:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lashawnbarber.com/?p=2028#comment-72193</guid>
		<description>Heliotrope wrote &quot;The indebtedness in this country is due to social security and medicare.&quot; Wrong. Social Security is running a &lt;i&gt;surplus&lt;/i&gt; year after year, and even under the projections of the Social Security Administration, which have always proven to be overly pessimistic in the past, Social Security will continue to run a surplus for at least 18 years, and probably more. Social Security is not the problem. The problem is a war in Iraq that is costing more than $2 billion dollars a week, paid for off-budget with &quot;emergency&quot; appropriations, coupled with unaffordable tax cuts.

America has been at war many times. We fought the British twice, first for independence and then in the War of 1812. We fought the war between the states. We fought World War I and World War II. We fought in Korea and Vietnam and Iraq, and Iraq again. Get this: wars cost money. And in all these wars, we never had an administration promoting tax cuts, or a Congress voting for tax cuts -- until the Republican George W. Bush administration and the Republican Congress of now. That&#039;s why it&#039;s time to put the grownups in charge. Vote Democrat!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Heliotrope wrote &#8220;The indebtedness in this country is due to social security and medicare.&#8221; Wrong. Social Security is running a <i>surplus</i> year after year, and even under the projections of the Social Security Administration, which have always proven to be overly pessimistic in the past, Social Security will continue to run a surplus for at least 18 years, and probably more. Social Security is not the problem. The problem is a war in Iraq that is costing more than $2 billion dollars a week, paid for off-budget with &#8220;emergency&#8221; appropriations, coupled with unaffordable tax cuts.</p>
<p>America has been at war many times. We fought the British twice, first for independence and then in the War of 1812. We fought the war between the states. We fought World War I and World War II. We fought in Korea and Vietnam and Iraq, and Iraq again. Get this: wars cost money. And in all these wars, we never had an administration promoting tax cuts, or a Congress voting for tax cuts &#8212; until the Republican George W. Bush administration and the Republican Congress of now. That&#8217;s why it&#8217;s time to put the grownups in charge. Vote Democrat!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: John</title>
		<link>http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2006/06/27/voting-rights-act/comment-page-1/#comment-72182</link>
		<dc:creator>John</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 Jun 2006 21:42:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lashawnbarber.com/?p=2028#comment-72182</guid>
		<description>Chris, you are giving me a lot to think about, but what I do say is this, how many people who enjoy these freedoms would readily fight to defend them?  I recognize there are other ways that this country is great, but when it comes down to it, of N. Korea and China start dropping troops in Washington, how many people do you think would take up arms to keep it, and how many do you think would accept that other&#039;s would fight and that when it was over they would have the right to vote because of the blood and sacrafice of these men and women.  True enough that the soldiers in Iraq are not directly defending our freedom as much as making the world a safer place for our way of life, but I was raised on the prospect that you don&#039;t deserve anything you won&#039;t defend.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Chris, you are giving me a lot to think about, but what I do say is this, how many people who enjoy these freedoms would readily fight to defend them?  I recognize there are other ways that this country is great, but when it comes down to it, of N. Korea and China start dropping troops in Washington, how many people do you think would take up arms to keep it, and how many do you think would accept that other&#8217;s would fight and that when it was over they would have the right to vote because of the blood and sacrafice of these men and women.  True enough that the soldiers in Iraq are not directly defending our freedom as much as making the world a safer place for our way of life, but I was raised on the prospect that you don&#8217;t deserve anything you won&#8217;t defend.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chris in Pearland</title>
		<link>http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2006/06/27/voting-rights-act/comment-page-1/#comment-72181</link>
		<dc:creator>Chris in Pearland</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 Jun 2006 20:41:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lashawnbarber.com/?p=2028#comment-72181</guid>
		<description>John, I can empathize with your position. However, I get up every morning and go to work. My job isn&#039;t glamorous, but it serves a valuable purpose to keep the country moving along. I raise my children to respect others and themselves. I teach my kids to love their country and appreciate what some have done to ensure freedom for all. I don&#039;t now and have never received any handouts from our government. I respect the police and support the troops. 
In short, I consider myself to be similar to the millions who really are the backbone of this nation. I am the taxpayer who foots the bill not only for the wars, bridges, roads and schools, but also for the social programs and handouts that bleed us dry. It rubs me the wrong way to hear that that isn&#039;t good enough to be able to vote in someone&#039;s eyes.
Also, considering the enormous number of citizens who regularly drink from the federal sow and put nothing back, I reject the notion that I get more than what I pay for.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>John, I can empathize with your position. However, I get up every morning and go to work. My job isn&#8217;t glamorous, but it serves a valuable purpose to keep the country moving along. I raise my children to respect others and themselves. I teach my kids to love their country and appreciate what some have done to ensure freedom for all. I don&#8217;t now and have never received any handouts from our government. I respect the police and support the troops.<br />
In short, I consider myself to be similar to the millions who really are the backbone of this nation. I am the taxpayer who foots the bill not only for the wars, bridges, roads and schools, but also for the social programs and handouts that bleed us dry. It rubs me the wrong way to hear that that isn&#8217;t good enough to be able to vote in someone&#8217;s eyes.<br />
Also, considering the enormous number of citizens who regularly drink from the federal sow and put nothing back, I reject the notion that I get more than what I pay for.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: John</title>
		<link>http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2006/06/27/voting-rights-act/comment-page-1/#comment-72178</link>
		<dc:creator>John</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 Jun 2006 19:13:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lashawnbarber.com/?p=2028#comment-72178</guid>
		<description>Chris, I realize you pay taxes, but what people recieve (not directly related to their voting rights) is more then worth what you pay in taxes, polices, military protection, hundreds of things that wouldn&#039;t be there without the government.  As for your taxes taking care of everything.  When a child&#039;s room is messy, does he take pride in a clean room by paying his little brother to clean the room for him?  No, you make him clean it himself.  You let him do it the first way and he won&#039;t think twice about how messy it gets how quickly.  You make him clean it, he will appreciate what it takes to get it clean and he will work to keep it that way.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Chris, I realize you pay taxes, but what people recieve (not directly related to their voting rights) is more then worth what you pay in taxes, polices, military protection, hundreds of things that wouldn&#8217;t be there without the government.  As for your taxes taking care of everything.  When a child&#8217;s room is messy, does he take pride in a clean room by paying his little brother to clean the room for him?  No, you make him clean it himself.  You let him do it the first way and he won&#8217;t think twice about how messy it gets how quickly.  You make him clean it, he will appreciate what it takes to get it clean and he will work to keep it that way.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dan</title>
		<link>http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2006/06/27/voting-rights-act/comment-page-1/#comment-72177</link>
		<dc:creator>Dan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 Jun 2006 18:40:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lashawnbarber.com/?p=2028#comment-72177</guid>
		<description>TexasFred,

Do it in public, on the town green, and I might believe you are.

Until people who are tired of it, speak out in the manner I state, not much will be done.

I personally think, that for me, it&#039;s getting REALLY close to that time.

Dan</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>TexasFred,</p>
<p>Do it in public, on the town green, and I might believe you are.</p>
<p>Until people who are tired of it, speak out in the manner I state, not much will be done.</p>
<p>I personally think, that for me, it&#8217;s getting REALLY close to that time.</p>
<p>Dan</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: jack</title>
		<link>http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2006/06/27/voting-rights-act/comment-page-1/#comment-72175</link>
		<dc:creator>jack</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 Jun 2006 16:28:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lashawnbarber.com/?p=2028#comment-72175</guid>
		<description>Anomalocaris, you are aware that Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, Ted Kennedy and John Kerry avoid such plebian things as paying inheritance taxes?

Warren Buffet&#039;s plan to leave his money to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation takes that money out of the inheritance tax&#039; path.

Similar tactics allow these people to avoid all manner of taxation--while simultaneously advocating for higher taxes.

They can afford to pay to set up the various shelters and loopholes that keep them--perfectly legally--almost tax-free.

But people who don&#039;t live at their rarified level of income can&#039;t. So Teddy easily passes the Kennedy fortune to the assorted Kenedites that will succeed him with little or no damage from the taxman while the mildly sucessful farmer cannot pass on his farm to his children without incurring a massive tax bill. 

The farmer can&#039;t afford to set up ofshore trusts, his capital is largely land. Teddy can.

Because the very rich can afford to legally avoid taxes, the burden falls on less well paid taxpayers. The recent Minnesota ad suggests that people making as little as 45.000 be taxed more.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Anomalocaris, you are aware that Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, Ted Kennedy and John Kerry avoid such plebian things as paying inheritance taxes?</p>
<p>Warren Buffet&#8217;s plan to leave his money to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation takes that money out of the inheritance tax&#8217; path.</p>
<p>Similar tactics allow these people to avoid all manner of taxation&#8211;while simultaneously advocating for higher taxes.</p>
<p>They can afford to pay to set up the various shelters and loopholes that keep them&#8211;perfectly legally&#8211;almost tax-free.</p>
<p>But people who don&#8217;t live at their rarified level of income can&#8217;t. So Teddy easily passes the Kennedy fortune to the assorted Kenedites that will succeed him with little or no damage from the taxman while the mildly sucessful farmer cannot pass on his farm to his children without incurring a massive tax bill. </p>
<p>The farmer can&#8217;t afford to set up ofshore trusts, his capital is largely land. Teddy can.</p>
<p>Because the very rich can afford to legally avoid taxes, the burden falls on less well paid taxpayers. The recent Minnesota ad suggests that people making as little as 45.000 be taxed more.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
