[Taxman]

My point is that the quotes you provided all focused on the spending platforms of the deomcratic candidates. You were using them as evidence against htose candidates and I was merely pointing out an example of something that could and should be cut before all of the other programs those candidates support. "I'm pointing out Kerry's being disingenous about what him cutting the budget decicit." First off that sentence doesn't entirely make sense, but a clear objective of your post was to point out flaws in the democratic candidates, without balancing this with any similar comments on Bush. If you're going to quote that extensively then you should include other relevant information. Questioning every thing I say without explicitly defining it is a weak way to argue. I will try to be more specific, but you know what I meant by the model of either side (ie the economic policies). You are the one obfuscating now, discrediting the vague parts of my arguments without making any actual arguments of your own. Similarly the answer I refer to is obviously meant as the "answer" to solving the economic problems of today. The importance of the difference between corporate and individual taxes is that corporations might be more able and more willing to utilize extra capital in a more constructive manner than individual billionaires.

In your post you said, "wrong it's possible to modify all tax laws." Ok I'll give you this one (sorta), I was vague, but do you really think I'm dumb enough to think all laws can't be changed? I meant that a selective review of the type of taxes raised or lowered can be a useful and legitimate way of doing things as opposed to a unilateral decision of raising/lowering all taxes (or maybe this is done, but in a way to benefit only certain people. Yes, this is opinion, not fact). I'm not trying to refute the NTU model, I'm only doing what you are trying to do to me with your response, and that is cast a question over the ultimate truth provided by it. "BTW the difficulty in defining taxable income for each and all categories of income earners is the reason the tax code is so complicated." I couldn't agree more. I know I just mentioned selective review under our current system, but ultimately I think the tax code is in dire need of extensive simplification. Also there's no need to make obtuse comments to my observations. Everyone is indeed entitled to their opinion and I was just stating mine. And yes, I do say so: criticism is an integral part of politics (unless you prefer the soviet Russia model). History will tell (more about) how things really are now because that's how history works. I'm not so vain as to claim I know what that will mean. I do know that there are far more people that want tax cuts because they want more money, than care about the environmental health and future of our planet. And then there's the people who complain to high heaven about the probles with public education, but refuse to pay the taxes needed to bring about any improvements. Maybe if they just redirected the military budget, we could solve most of these problems, but that seems unlikely in the current political climate.