There is nothing more dangerous than a man with nothing left to lose.

[flamin lib]

Crime rates are increasing for the first time since 2001, and it’s the largest percentage increase since 1991. Could it be that while the economy grew at a rate of 4.2% in 2004 (measured by GDP) middle class income fell for the fifth year in a row? Could it be that the unemployment rate of 4.6% is pure fantasy because the Bush Administration changed the way unemployment is measured for the first time since 1947? Could it be that the unemployment rate is really between 8% and 12% if computed under the old formula?

The Republicans who control both houses of Congress, the Executive and arguably the judicial branch keep telling us that the economy is strong. This doesn’t jive with Consumer Confidence remaining low and falling for a record five years. It doesn’t match polls showing that 70% of Americans believe the country is on the wrong track. How can the Republicans believe this when potential voters believe that Democrats would do a better job on the economy by a margin of 20%? Why is it that they believe this when there are 46,000,000 people without health care, increasing by a million a year since they took power? How can they think this when one in 4 children lives in poverty and one in 5 goes to bed hungry?

They can believe it because they only talk to the top 2% of the income range and to lobbyists who represent big business. They don’t know that those who make less than $200,000 even exist. Minimum wage has not increased since 1997, the longest period since it was passed into law and at that the increase was only 40 cents. If minimum wage had kept pace with CEO salaries just since the Republicans took office it would be $26 an hour.

We are seeing an increase in poverty and with that comes an increase in hopelessness, an increase in crime, an increase in drug use, an increase in out of wedlock birth and an increase in abortion. As the distance between the haves and have-nots increases this trend increases. If you need an example of what happens next look at Mexico. Kidnapping is now a leading growth industry. It was once reserved for the uber-wealthy but is moving further down the income level until it is now common to have “express” abductions where the victim is driven from ATM to ATM until the accounts are all empty.

Look at Mexico. If you like what you see there, vote Republican.

http://kdka.com/topstories/topstories_story_163102458.html Crime rate increase.

http://www.pasadenastarnews.com/opinions/ci_3902574 Haves vs Have-nots

http://www.mexidata.info/id217.html Mexico kidnappings

[MikeNearMcChord]

1. Or worse , it will be like other

South American countries where the wealthy pay for paramilitary forces, that protects them while terrorizing the population

[Greyhound]

3. Nah, Mexico is even better, the tax-payers pay to protect the

uber-lords there, they don't even have to pay for their own security.

and in related news;
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/business/articles/0612mexbiz0612.html

[ThomCat]

2. The rich don't care, as long as they've got

their gated communities and their security guards. As long as poverty is something that only happens to other people they don't care how bad it gets.

If we restricted inheritance so that there was a possible chance their kids might end up poor, THEN, maybe more people would care.

[neoblues]

4. We should tax them blind.

No need to wait until they try to extend their family dynasties.

[ThomCat]

5. Not quite blind,

But we definitely need to re-introduce progressive taxation and an estate tax with lower thresholds.

[neoblues]

6. Picky, Picky...

When "the top 5 percent had more wealth than the remaining 95 percent of the population, collectively.", and "The richest 10 percent of families own about 85 percent of all outstanding stocks. They own about 85 percent of all financial securities, 90 percent of all business assets." and "The top 20 percent owns over 80 percent of all wealth", and when "The top 1 percent of families hold half of all non-home wealth."...

We need a rebalancing of wealth. Whether that means taxing the wealthy until they go "blind" or not, depends on how you define "blind" and on whether the assumption that being taxed actually has an effect on eyesight. Perhaps my meaning would be more along the lines of "until they wish they'd gone blind".

In any case, any reinstatement of taxes ought to be retroactive--as well as to reflect a higher rate than previously known (such as one sees in Europe). Why? The concentration of wealth (ultra-wealthy and their Corporations) is directly associated with the concentration of power we see behind the efforts to control our government and country. Unless or until we've directly reduced this threat we can expect them to continue to wield power... True campaign finance reform and some means to allow an equal opportunity for average citizens to run for high office along with real control over the media to ensure fair coverage and likewise truly reforming our electoral processes to provide honest, verifiable elections--might just allow the middle class to elect a government that will respond to the people, but even then the wealthy will, I'm confident, find the means necessary to apply far more than their fair share of power--presuming there was even the smallest chance we could actually achieve such reforms while they're still calling the shots.

In any case, we lost the battle in the supposedly non-existent 'class war', long ago (well, to be honest, there never was such a war--some backlash after WWII, which basically created the middle class, but no 'war'), and whatever you think of that, we've made truly gigantic strides in the last 6 years. Backward strides, but strides nonetheless.

Taxes can only be a part of it... at an effective rate, whatever you want to call it--so long as it achieves an elimination of the deficts as well as a reduction of the debt. Though, again, it would be useful if it could be applied to change the social landscape, provide opportunity for all and strengthen our Democratic Constitutional Republican form of government--but that may almost border on an offense against Capitalism. Not that that would necessarily be a bad thing.