Now
Fair
23°
High
32°
Low
16°
Full Forecast

Jobs

Cars

Homes

Rentals

Alerts

Subscribe
Home > Opinion > Letters
Bookmark Us   •   Make Us Your Homepage

Letters, 8/26: Who makes sacrifices

Comments 63 comment(s)  
E-mail Story E-mail Story
Print Story Print Story
Share  Share
Text Size: 
Tools Sponsor

Tuesday, Aug 26, 2008 - 10:02:06 am CDT

I recently read an editorial in the Lincoln Journal Star (Aug. 16) that sided with the Lincoln Independent Business Association calling for a reduction in the retirement plan match for city workers. This is meant to be a solution for Lincoln’s fiscal problems.

Now, I know several people who work for the city, and they are hardly rolling in dough. Don’t you think it is odd and a little curious that every time we talk about solutions for our city’s budget, it is the middle- and lower-income people who must sacrifice? I have a crazy idea: Why don’t we identify the very wealthiest citizens in our community and raise their taxes? Next, we could demand a living wage for all wage earners in Lincoln. Put more money in the hands of middle- and lower-income people, and they will spend it. This would immediately increase our tax base, create a boom for businesses, and the city would within a year be on solid fiscal grounds.

We could then try this at the national level. Why should the middle- and low-income wage earners be the people who sacrifice? We do most of the fighting in wars, we do most of the working, and we buy most of the products that keep businesses running.

The Republican lie is that if you let the rich keep more of their money, everything will be all right. This has not worked for the common guy or gal and never will. It has worked for the rich as their incomes have risen dramatically, while the rest of us continue to make less.

Those who think this sounds like a good idea should think about their vote before walking into the booth this November. Remember, it is one person’s vote. It does not belong to a neighbor, church or any party. Only the voter knows what his or her needs are. It is time people vote their own economic interest. Vote Democrat!

Jim Elsener, Lincoln

Don't change rule

With families like mine struggling to make ends meet, you’d think the Bush administration would be working to make basics such as health care more accessible. Apparently not.

A rule change proposed by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services would put access to common and effective methods of birth control at risk by calling them “abortions.” These newly identified “abortions” would include all birth control pills and IUDs, among other contraceptives. Unless health care providers allow employees to refuse to provide these so-called “abortions,” they could lose their federal funding.

The Bush administration should be trying to fix the economic mess we’re in. Restricting access to contraception will increase unintended pregnancies and the heath care costs that go with them. How much extra will that cost families and taxpayers?

Kathryn Smith, Lincoln

Uphold sanctity of marriage

In her column on Aug. 16, Holly Lafferty told Christians to quit wasting their time attacking gay marriage. In making her point, she quoted Jesus’ words recorded in Matthew 7:1: “Do not judge, or you too will be judged.”

Lafferty neglected to quote what Jesus further said just after he spoke against hypocritical judging. “First take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye” (Matthew 7:5). On another occasion, Jesus said, “Stop judging by mere appearances and make a right judgment” (John 7:24).

In applying Jesus’ injunction to issues mentioned in Lafferty’s column, Christians should not judge according to appearances. True judgments depend on careful consideration of issues on the basis of God’s Word.

Christians should use their time to uphold the sanctity of marriage by proclaiming the truth that marriage is a relationship between one man and one woman, that marriage is a lifelong union, that husband and wife must be faithful to each other. In that way, Christians will make headway in their cause to witness for Christ by glorifying him in their marriage and reaching out to others through their marriage.

David F. Schultz, Rising City


$1 Sunday Delivery - Subscribe Today!
Letters > Back to Top of Story

Post Your Comment

Standards and Rules
All posts to JournalStar.com are subject to our Terms and Standards.
Your posted comment will appear after it has been approved.
Frequently asked questions about story commenting.
(optional)
   
Hide Comments Hide Comments   Newest First Newest First  
Sean wrote on August 26, 2008 6:03 am:
" Mr. Elsener: Nice rewording of the Communist Manifesto youv'e got there! Glad to see someone still embraces the ideals of the Marx brothers; Groucho, Harpo,Zeppo and .....Karl. You might have more luck with it than the Russians, North Koreans and Cubans have....but I doubt it. "

 Rob wrote on August 26, 2008 6:09 am:
" Jim, your right, why should the middle-lower income always have to make the sacrifices? Republicans have always been for the rich, corporations.
Yet this red state will vote Republican every year then whine that the
Democrates raise the taxes. How in the world do these people think the
bills that the republicans dump on us are going to get paid? It doesn't
take a rocket science to figure out you have to budget. I've budgeted
our household money for 50 years & know that who we owe comes first. IF
we can't afford it, then we don't need it. Bush administration has got
us into a debt that our grandchildren will be paying on for years. Yet
there are those who whine, the Democrates will raise taxes. Bush didn't
help our taxes, in fact they went up, now how much of a debt do we taxpayers have to pay back to China? Thanks to Bush. We have liberal Republicans running our state, our nation so our taxes go up. We would stop voting the rich into office, would help. "

 MarkyMark wrote on August 26, 2008 6:45 am:
" What sanctity? Heterosexuals have made a mess of it. "

 RIght Judgement wrote on August 26, 2008 6:49 am:
" Good point. But from where I stand, the plank of fear and ignorance is still firmly planted in your judgemental eye. Why persecute gay people who simply want to commit to the same lifelong union? That should be a cause for celebration! No one wants to force your place of worship to participate if you don't want to, and if you really contemplate this issue, with truth and honesty, you'll realize that gay marriage, in no way whatsoever, has any impact on your ability to honor God through your own. "

 WWJD wrote on August 26, 2008 6:54 am:
" David your letter is very agreeable but the point of hollys letter was that the crazy christans that say god hates gays should stop wasting there time. god doesn't hate them. the article also states that premarital sex, devorce and adultry are far bigger issues that are attacking marrage in the christian community. so infact her article was not neglecting anything inorder to judge correctly by your definition we chritians need to fix all the premarital sex, devorce and adultry that is within our own christian body before we judge others. gay marriage isn't the only thing that is attacking the sanctity of marrage and if you can't see that you need to take the plank out of your eye. "

 Response to Jim wrote on August 26, 2008 7:19 am:
" So, in other words Jim, strict socialism? Take from the wealthy to give to the poor, for no other reason than the fact that they are wealthy?

I know your heart is in the right place, but socialism is not the answer. Shockingly enough, some people are wealthy because they have earned it, and some people are poor because they, too, have earned that. This is not true for all, but just taking someone's money because "hey, I need it more" is theft, regardless of if it is being done by the government and called taxation. "

 Yup wrote on August 26, 2008 7:46 am:
" Jim, are you jealous of the rich people? Some of them obviously are the benefits of old money, but many made it on their own. They are already taxed at the highest rate, why should they be taxed even more just because they're successful. You go on to say everyone should be paid a living wage. That would only work if prices didn't go up to accomodate the employer needing to pay a living wage. Just because you get more wages, it doesn't mean that you can buy more when prices go up to pay for that wage. But then you got to the true message of your letter. Bad republicans, good democrats. Obviously you have heard the republican moto that allowing the rich to keep their money will bring more jobs, better economy. But have you also heard the democrats like to keep the poor on government programs (welfare) so they are greatful. People said New Orleans was a great example of that philosophy (until Katrina). I don't buy any of the hype being tossed about by BOTH parties. You said yourself, it's one persons vote, it doesn't belong to neighbor, church, or party, then you say vote democrat. Isn't voting democrat giving your vote to a party? I'll either vote for the best PERSON for the job or not vote at all (which I'm now considering since I can't stand either of the candidates). By the way, I'm just guessing your a registered democrat, right? "

 mitchy_v wrote on August 26, 2008 7:48 am:
" These religous arguements are getting old. "

 Mark wrote on August 26, 2008 7:50 am:
" Hey Jim, your wealth re-distribution plan if flawed! Just last night, Michelle Obama talked about working hard to reach your dreams. Why? So democrat's can take more of it from you? Sounds like a winning hand there. I hate to break the news to you, but there will always be low and middle class people. That's the way it is. If I am going to vote "my own economic interest" as you have suggested, then I will vote for the guy who wants to give me some of my hard earned money back, not take it from me to give to others who will NEVER be wealthy in a financial sense. I will vote for someone who at least has a plan to do something about the economy, energy, the war etc, instead of voting for someone who runs around and yells change without any realistic plans. Vote Republican, or you won't have any "Change" left in your pocket after the democrat's get it from you. "

 Zoomie wrote on August 26, 2008 7:51 am:
" Why do Christians keep trying to turn the civil contract of marriage into some religious thing that only they get to define? To perform a LEGAL marriage in any state, you must obtain a license from the state. Marriages can be legally performed having absolutely nothing to do with religion. In most (likely all) states, even having a priest or minister perform a wedding isn't valid or legal, UNLESS you first obtain a license from the state.

In other words - marriage is a civil law contract, to which people can (or not) attach additional religious significance if they wish. But the religion part is optional; the legal part is not! And no one EXCEPT the Religious Right are trying to claim that gay marriage would force religions into allowing gay religious marriage ceremonies. That is utter hogwash! Think Catholics and divorce. Legally, one can divorce and remarry. But no law in any state can require the Church to recognize the divorce, nor can they force the Church to conduct marriage ceremonies for 2nd marriages, if the 1st ended in divorce.

So can we keep religion out of the legal system, for those of us who don't see a religious need, and allow gays the same (equal) rights the rest of us have? Let's remember, a gov't study 4-5 yrs ago determined the ability to legally marry gave more than 1,800 different rights and benefits to the married couple, rights and benefits anyone homosexual was being denied (in at least 3 states now, a denial process ruled unconstitutional under state constitution)! "

 stignob wrote on August 26, 2008 7:56 am:
" LOL! Marxist, Stalin, Mao and Lenin would be proud of Mr. Elsener take from the rich and give to the poor mentality. And they call themselves democratic? Which could be the very reason why the donkeys won't win this election. And they say the Repug's have been hi-jacked by the religious right? Maybe it's about time they too look at themselves in the mirror. But of course by then it will be too late to realize what they've done to the land of the free. "

 as wrote on August 26, 2008 8:09 am:
" Unfortunately voting Democrat will not get the middle to lower class wage earner in any better of a position than voting Republican will. If you closely examine the records of the Democrats, history shows that their typical solution is to create more gov't programs (thereby hiring more gov't workers) & lowering the wage levels for eligibility to the programs thereby creating a whole separate class of people who are dependent on the gov't to make ends meet for them.
Yep, just where I want to be - living from Uncle Sam's hand - NOT "

 C wrote on August 26, 2008 8:12 am:
" I agree with David, let the person who is perfect be the first to cast the stone. However, marriage is a religious institution which was accepted by the government for legal purposes. The government did not create marriage, therefore how can they say what defines marriage and who can get married, that should be upto each persons religion. The government needs to no longer use the classification of "marriage", they should use the words "domestic partner" for all couples. Based on the law I have no problems with any couple, man/woman, woman/woman, man/man, having the same legal rights as my wife and I enjoy. They deserve the same legal rights as us. We need to separate church and state. My beleifs, religion and church do not agree with it but what does that have to do with the legal rights of someone. And if these couples attend churches and have beleifs that they can get married, that is their choice and belief, and should be allowed to exercise their religion as they please. I do not agree with many religions and even different synods with in my own Christian religion, but everyone should be allowed to practice their religion as they see fit. Every religion sees marraige differently, Mormon, Christians, Muslims, etc... Marriage is a religious institution that was recognized as a legal union by the government a long time ago. The government needs to "release" the definition of marriage back to the religions and recognize couple as just "legal unions" for legal purposes. "

 Josh wrote on August 26, 2008 8:21 am:
" Lord almighty - how many weeks of this Bible-thumping malarkey is the LJS gonna print? We get it already. Please stop. It is getting so old reading the same commenets re-hashed over and over again. PLEASE STOP!!!! "

 Darwin wrote on August 26, 2008 8:36 am:
" Even I am getting tired of seeing irrational bible thumping printed in the LJS. How many times do we have to have the same debate of Reason vs Mythology? I just dont have it in me today. *sigh*

For the last time: I am not a christain, thus your christian rules do not apply to me!!! (I am not gay, but after reading all this I kinda wish I were so I could rub their hypicritical faces in it) "

 Sacrifices wrote on August 26, 2008 8:56 am:
" Here's the hard truth red-staters: Democrats may be the party of tax and spend, but Republicans are the party of BORROW and spend. This administration (at the federal level) has mortgaged our children's future to the tune of trillions of dollars of additional debt. Does that not concern you at all? Do you care about our children's future, or not?

Of course we need to control spending, but we also need to fund our current spending so we don't go further into debt. Republicans (like everyone) appreciate the sacrifice of our honorable men and women in uniform, but seem unwilling to pony up their share (in taxes) to pay for the war on terror. Instead, Republicans seem content letting the Chinese pony up for them.

It's time we took responsibility. Stop believing the garbage you hear from opinionators on TV and radio and do some research. Quit complaining about taxes when our men and women in uniform are sacrificing so much. Step up and do your part, red state whiners. "

 SB wrote on August 26, 2008 9:03 am:
" Somebody please explain to me what civil/legal unions and the associated legal benefits have to do with the bible or your born-into-religion? C; it seems changing the word is only blindly skirting the issue that religious nuts feel their religion/bible needs to dictate civil law. Instead of changing the definition of marriage would you just be okay with the government dropping civil/legal union benefits for everyone and just let the religions keep it as their own little ‘sacrament’? I’m guessing most religious nuts all of sudden wouldn’t think marriage had so much ‘sanctity’ and wouldn’t hold it to such a high pedestal. "

 For Yaall wrote on August 26, 2008 9:15 am:
" COULD IT GET ANY WORSE THAN IT IS? Which party has given corporations record profits and paid it's ceo's millions in pay and even retirement payments? I am an independent and will vote to never see another like georgie and tricky dickey "

 Ned wrote on August 26, 2008 9:20 am:
" Why yes Sean! Everyone knows that anyone who calls for what is fair and equal is either a filthy Communist, anti American or Attila the Hun. Nebraska Republicans have bought into the "rich deserve it all" against your own self interest. When McCain gets in and the Corporations have bought congress again and you are in a ditch with a bread crumb to eat I would think you will be raising your tired arm still defending the wealthy who have you where you are and the stupidity of the "Trickle down theory." Karl, George, Micky Mouse... whomever! I will never defend the wealthy against whats fair and just. "

 Josh Darwin etc. wrote on August 26, 2008 9:43 am:
" Here's a thought. Don't read the comments on the days you don't like them. No one is forcing you to read people's opinions. Personally, I either read the comments from people who denigrate the Bible, Christians, and God or I quit reading and go on with my day. It is as simple as that. "

 C wrote on August 26, 2008 10:06 am:
" SB, I don't quite understand what your disagreement with me is? If you ask me the argument is all about the wording. The religious fantics would have less of an argument if all people applied for a partnership liscence instead of a marriage liscense with the government. If you asked any of them "when" they were married to their wives, that it happened when their pastor/preist said I now pronounse you husband and wife, not when they filed their liscence with the government. Leave the marriage part of it to the persons religion. Legally or politically, how could they fight it with any actual supported argument? Saying a Christian married couple deserves more legal rights than any (repeat any) other couple is discrimination. "

 So Yup wrote on August 26, 2008 10:35 am:
" Your solution is to reduce taxes on the rich and raise them on the working poor? That trickle down theory you repugs like to spout is pure nonsense. All that money goes overseas and does not flow down to the working poor who end up paying a higher percentage of income to taxes than the rich with all their tax deductions.

Also, just recently the gov't released how many corporations do not pay income taxes and many of them are Fortune 500 companies. "

 Gene Hogan wrote on August 26, 2008 10:42 am:
" I hope all of these Christians that are braying about the sanctity of marriage don't vote for political candidates that cheat on their spouses or divorce their spouse to marry someone with more money. "

 SB wrote on August 26, 2008 10:50 am:
" My big picture question is why Christian fanatics feel their religion should determine civil law and what they have against granting all legal benefits to all citizens? We’re on the same page, but I was just introducing the idea that changing the wording of ‘marriage’ and granting benefits to all citizens or dropping all legal benefits for everyone would still be unacceptable for the religious fanatic agenda because it would mean all of a sudden they are not on a higher legal, social, or psychological pedestal as others – however they would still have their self proclaimed moral pedestal, so maybe they would agree to it? I’m all for the religious fanatics right to preach from the highest mountain their personal or indoctrinated views and judgment of others not like themselves (and look forward to the laughs brought about by the letters to the editor and think we should have more letters condemning more social groups to hell – let’s get it all out in the open), but don’t expect the law of the land to be based on your personal religion. "

 Oh David wrote on August 26, 2008 10:50 am:
" The mental gymnastics it must have taken you to arrive at your conclusions is impressive. “First take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye” (Matthew 7:5) so soon after "Do not judge, or you too will be judged" Seems to go alot more with "Let he who hath not sinned cast the first stone." Basically - once you get that giant plank out of your eye (i.e., your sins) you can start to point out other people's. Of course that wouldn't help you make your "one man one woman argument" would it. In fact, it goes exactly counter to what you said. "

 eddie wrote on August 26, 2008 11:00 am:
" Coporate income taxes are included in the costs of the coporations' goods and services. In reality, coporations never pay taxes. They just pass the cost of the taxes on to the consumer. "

 Alan wrote on August 26, 2008 11:08 am:
" Surely you zest, Sir. You can’t believe that the inequalities within society are caused or could be cured by not letting the wealthy keep so much of “their” money. I find that the belief that it’s okay to tax the more productive members of our country at a rate higher than their less prosperous fellow’s decreases in direct proportion to the level of their own personal success.

If we are to enjoy “Equality before the law”, as our state motto suggests I find no justification for extracting from any man a greater portion of their wealth for the sustenance of the state than any other man. What you are suggesting man, is naught but outright socialism, a curse most of the rest of the world is wisely beginning to shed even while it creeps forward as a thief, here in America. "

 PW wrote on August 26, 2008 11:38 am:
" Its not the democrats or republicans, its the GREEDY!! Socialism? All
you have to do is look in your own back yard, did Bush create Lincoln's
outragious home prices and assessed values that are waaay beyond what you
could ever get out of your house to sell. Ask a bunch of my neighbors that
have had their houses on the market since January and even priced them
waaay below what they are assessed for and several way below what they
paid for them in the beginning. I don't think Bush came to Nebraska and
doubled the cost of living and then went to other states and cut it in
half or taxed their houses 2 to 6 times lower than Lincolns!!! Wake up!
I don't think Bush came here and said, "now your going to build the most
expensive jail and arena, move railroad tracks and dump all the taxes on
the citizens so a few can fill their pockets like Lincoln's always done!!!" Reasoning in most of these comments are ridiculous!!!! "

 Yup wrote on August 26, 2008 11:55 am:
" Where in my comment did I say reduce the taxes on wealthy and make the poor pay more? And where did I say I'm a republican? People only read what they want. "

 Lower taxes wrote on August 26, 2008 12:02 pm:
" Jim is right! Vote for Obama if you want lower taxes. Unless you make in excess of $112,000 annually anyway.

According to the “Tax Policy Center’s analysis of the candidates’ proposed tax changes, the primary difference between them would be distributional, with Senator Obama’s proposals favoring lower-income taxpayers and Senator McCain’s proposals favoring higher-income taxpayers:

McCain: The average taxpayer in every income group would see a lower tax bill, but high-income taxpayers would benefit more than everyone else.

Obama: High-income taxpayers would pay more in taxes, while everyone else’s tax bill would be reduced. Those who benefit the most – in terms of reducing their taxes as a percentage of after-tax income – are in the lowest income groups.”

The Tax Policy Center analysis further clarifies that folks making less than $227,000 annually would receive a tax cut under the Obama plan (albeit smaller than McCain’s plan) and folks making less than $112,000 annually would receive a bigger tax cut under Obama's plan than under McCain's.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/taxes.asp "

 George wrote on August 26, 2008 12:12 pm:
" Never ceases to amaze me how the 'tolerent' left leaning folks are always ready to toss name calling around to make their point, but they belive the end justifies the means, so sad.... "

 Much given wrote on August 26, 2008 12:29 pm:
" When you are rich, you have the opportunity to have your money work for you, rather than work for your money. In other words, just by having money, you are making money through your investments or interest income.

When you are rich, you have more opportunities. You can afford to go to the best schools and have access the best financial and legal advice. If you have an idea or see an opportunity, you have the resources to explore/exploit them.

I’m just pointing out a few of many advantages the fortunate folks with money enjoy. Since they enjoy these advantages in our society, shouldn’t they shoulder a greater tax burden than the folks who do not have such advantages?

Should the rich continue to get even richer (as has been the trend) and pay little or no taxes through their various tax shelters? Or should they pay their fair share?

Our society has blessed them. I say that to those to whom much is given, much should be expected. "

 Nina wrote on August 26, 2008 12:32 pm:
" Instead of what some label socialism (would your last name be McCarthy, by chance?), I would hope for the same level of income disparity the US enjoyed for the previous 50 years before now. Fewer rich, with those in the middle and bottom doing better - I didn't realize we were communist then - as I recall it was democracy in a lot better shape than we are now. Also I can't understand those who rail at government taking over our lives, then wanting to outlaw women's choices. 'Choice' does not mean pro-abortion. Choice is a moral issue instead of a legislative issue. It means women should choose, and choose wisely, and it means mean should act wisely, also. I personally feel abortion is seldom warranted, and give of my time and resources to sustain life, but I am pro-choice. It means we have a lot of work to do in our churches and communities about responsibility for both men and women in sexual issues, to raise our morality. If we work hard enough at that, men will learn to choose their actions more wisely, and women will make choices based on what is good. Result - the abortion rate will fall drastically. "

 Jimmy wrote on August 26, 2008 12:38 pm:
" To those who think Jim’s idea of taxing the rich smacks of socialism, go pick up a book and find out what socialism actually is in theory and practice.

I could just as easily say that the current system is akin to feudalism. The privileged few own almost all the resources. They sit in their castles and keep getting even wealthier on the backs of the common man. Of course where this analogy breaks down is that the wealthy lords are under no obligation to protect the serfs. Quite the opposite. It's the common man who enrolls in the military to protect the interests of the wealthy. "

 Get it right wrote on August 26, 2008 12:40 pm:
" For all you "uneducated" people who talk about corporations paying taxes..they don't. The shareholders of stock who own the company pay taxes on their percentage of profit or loss based on their ownership percentage. So please stop saying corporations don't pay there respective share. They don't under the current tax structure, but the government still get's it's share from the shareholders. Just because a ceo get's millions of dollars, you all need to complainto the board of directors of those companies about their respective ceo pay. Their compensation has nothing to do with the government or President Bush. Get a clue and some education about how things work people of which some of you are blogging about. "

 Define this wrote on August 26, 2008 1:05 pm:
" Sanctity: the quality or state of being holy or sacred.

Sanctity of marriage: 50% divorce rate, 50% of children will be affected by divorce, 37% of men and 22% of women admit to having affairs, 61% of US population believes that adultery should not be a crime, the number [of] currently divorced adults quadrupled from 4.3 million in 1970 to 17.4 million in 1994, can we say: elliot Spitzer, John Edwards, Newt Ginrich, John McCain, Bill Clinton, Rudy Giuliani, Ted Haggard, Jimmy Swaggart - we won't even mention celebrities.

Divorce rates among Christians: 34% of non-denomnations, 29% of Baptists, 25% of Protestants, 24% of Mormans, 21% of Catholics and Lutherans.

I am so glad these bible-thumpers believe in the "sanctity" of marriage. "

 Get real folks wrote on August 26, 2008 1:23 pm:
" If the "productive" members of society had the most than I would have made a fortune as a teen when I scooped concrete 16 hours a day. You only make the most if you 1. Move out of Nebraska where they pay and 2. you have the advantage of being born into a family that allows you to become educated or 3. Your parents hand it to you. "

 T wrote on August 26, 2008 1:40 pm:
" Vote Republician or you won't have any change left in your pocket? After nearly eight years of trickle-down failure, here's where we stand. Our dollars don't go as far (inflation outpacing wage increases), we are worth less (stocks are down, 401Ks have lost thousands), housing dropped (we have less credit), and taxes have risen giving us less take home pay. The GOP has done a most excellent job of taking the change out of our pockets already. And the pockets of future generations now saddled with 9 trillion dollars of debt. What is conservative about that? "

 You got it wrong wrote on August 26, 2008 2:09 pm:
" A corporation is a tax paying entity separate from its shareholders. The only time the shareholders pay taxes on their percentage of profit or loss based on their ownership percentage is in a Subchapter S corporation, and no publicly traded corporations are Sub S.

Several posters subscribe to the belief that corporate income taxes are included in the cost of goods and services and passed on to the consumer. If that were true, then corporate income taxes would be a de facto consumption tax, a concept that has been adopted by the Republican party as being more fair than the current system. That being the case, why does McCain want to lower the corporate tax rate? "

 John wrote on August 26, 2008 2:21 pm:
" In response to Jim: For the life of me I can't understand why those who think they don't have enough have to take it from those who are successful. Maybe I'm wrong but the country I grew up in doesn't or shouldn't punish success. God forbid those who find themselves in less than favorable circumstances do something to change their life. I'm not naive enough to think all people bring hard luck on themselves but some do. If most of us really took a step back and looked at our situation we'd find we aren't that bad off or if we are there are changes we can make. We shouldn't count on the government to supply us with anything other than a sturdy infrastructure, police, and fire. On the federal level we should expect a strong military to defend our country...beyond those things it shouldn't be the government's responsibility. Why should those who've put in the hard work to earn their money be mandated by the government to give it to those who haven't? They may choose to if they want but it should be their decision. BTW, for all of those who agree with Jim, how much extra do you include when it comes time to send your money to the IRS? "

 No Ned wrote on August 26, 2008 3:41 pm:
" Ned, How is it fair and just that a person works and makes money and becomes wealthy but then they have to turn around and give to people who are less fortunate or less motivated? If you worked and made money so that your family could be comfortable, it would not be fair for the government to step in and take your money and give to others. Hopefully, the people with the resources will choose to help others, but to have the government mandate it would not be fair and just. No, the rich do not deserve it all, but they deserve what they have earned. "

 Mart wrote on August 26, 2008 3:56 pm:
" Great letter, Kathryn. It is difficult to figure out the goal of this political charade. Pandering to the Christian base, obviously, but if you don't want abortions, why are you trying to make birth control less available? "

 JR wrote on August 26, 2008 4:20 pm:
" For all you who think Jim is a socialist communist, think about this. Who has been given the largest tax breaks over the last eight years? Whose taxes have gone up? When the lower and middle class are carrying a proportionately larger share of the tax burden, then something is not right. And please don't tell me about the old Trickle down theory. In order for that to work, the wealthiest need to spend there money here ... in America ... where they made their millions. Instead, they spend it on trips and cruises to Europe or the Caribbean. Which is fine, they earned it, so they can spend it how they want. But it kind of defeats the whole "let the rich keep their money so they will consume and support more Americans", doesn't it. Besides, most wealthy individuals who are successful have great lawyers and accountants to find the many loop holes available to them. Maybe that is the answer. Eliminate all deductions. Raise the minimum taxable income, and catch the cheaters who are not paying their fair share. "

 Just Me wrote on August 26, 2008 5:21 pm:
" Where did you people get the idea that rich people are more productive? Every time I read that I LMAO. I'm sure some are but I believe most are not. Very many of the rich are CEO's who have raised stock prices by laying off people by the thousands. I don't consider that being productive. "

 Zoomie wrote on August 26, 2008 6:00 pm:
" Lower Taxes - you forgot to mention that study concluded McCain will sharply increase the national debt, while Obama will only grow it slightly!

Here's some stats for you - Under Reagan, the Dow grew (8yrs, inauguration to inauguration) 148%; under Clinton it grew 187%; so far, under Bush? SIX percent!!! In SEVEN YEARS!!!

Another stat on this evening's news - the number of people with no health insurance dropped slightly. GOP are already touting it as good news! But...It's down, per Census Bureau, because the number of Americans being enrolled into PUBLIC health insurance (gov't supplied) is up dramatically! Mostly because more and more qualify for Medicaid the last few years. So the very thing the GOP called for (more "market" supplied insurance) has failed, and the thing they've railed against is helping more people and reducing the number without insurance - gov't programs! Oops! "

 MC wrote on August 26, 2008 8:03 pm:
" Being wealthy isn't a particularly good indication of being an upright, hard-working individual, and not having enough isn't a particularly good indication of being a lazy, alcoholic SOB.

Being poor isn't a particularly good indication of being a hard worker either. In fact, I'm sure there are people of all sorts of moral fiber and work ethic littered throughout the tax brackets.

However, there are, without doubt, people in the lower echelons who are working very hard, and not seeing commensurate compensation for their efforts. And they most certainly deserve a hand from the society that has for some reason short-shrifted them.

Some people are in a better position to help than others.

"With great power, comes great responsibility." "

 Dow Jones wrote on August 26, 2008 8:32 pm:
" Actually, Zoomie, under Reagan the Dow went from 900 to 2,200, an increase of 1,100. Under Clinton the Dow went from 3,200 to 10,500, an increase of 7,300. Actual increase under Reagan was about 122%, while under Clinton, the Dow rose about 240% or about twice as big an increase. "

 MarkyMark wrote on August 26, 2008 8:46 pm:
" Actually, judging by these knee-jerk responses, many of you are missing the point. I love tax cuts! However, if it doesn't work, it doesn't work.

The act of financial terrorism has been perpetrated by Republican presidents for far too long and it's the American public's fault. How can you say that Marky? Easy, we let it happen.

Look how many people on these posts care about little more than tax cuts. You are looking at one thing like it's the big picture. "He's cutting taxes, i'm voting for him". He's raising taxes on the rich, I'm voting against him". One small part of the big picture.

Somewhere along the line, the Republicans figured out that Americans don't really care about running up debt. They are more concerned with a $100 tax cut. Read these posts and it's obvious, because we keep electing these guys, these Unconservative Conservatives that keep running up our debt. When will the learn the difference between politics and policy?? If they were in business they would be fired. If they did this in private life, they would be repo'd and living on the streets.

Like I said, I would love a tax cut, but more importantly, I would love a responsible government that would actually pay their own way. If you vote for these twisted (Conservatives?), your grandkids, greatgrandkids, etc. etc who don't deserve it, get stuck with the next great depression, and backruptcy of America.

What America needs is responsible leaders who will pay their own way, not people who thumb their nose at America's future, for their petty election gains. From Reagan, to Bush Jr, these guys chose not to use their veto pens, when America needed it most. It sorta reminds most people of a bunch of seventh grade boys with credit cards. Stop the crap, NOW! "

 we need some more learnin wrote on August 26, 2008 9:17 pm:
" you do know one of the most expansive eras in the u.s. when many people moved up the class ladder and economic prosperity was spread far more equitably than it is today - post world war 2. and during that time we were also expanding social programs. we had taken care of retirees and those without work during the 30's and during the 40's we focused on the middle class. all you tax the poor feed the rich types i just dont understand. our history has been so clear that prosperity for most comes when the disparity of wealth is more equitable. "

 fed up wrote on August 26, 2008 10:17 pm:
" Tax the churches to fund social programs. The separtion of church and state has all but dissapeared! I wonder what the property tax on the Indian Hills compound would bring in alone. "

 Privacy wrote on August 26, 2008 10:36 pm:
" If you want to get married that's fine, but this is where the right to privacy starts, you do not dictate to another person " its between two different genders" Marriage if you chose to do that is a private issue, and should not be a part of the government or a church. Its a personal issue between two people. Regardless of the gender of those individuals.

Its time in this country to start a new discussion.
Separation of Church and State

Right to Privacy laws to be strengthened "

 Huh wrote on August 26, 2008 11:31 pm:
" "Get it right"??? Corporations don't pay taxes, just stockholders??
Golleeeey! Wonder why I was filing and paying corporate taxes for 46
years in the 13 states we were licensed in?????? Wonder why states
auditors came to our company and audited our tax returns??? They never
every found anything wrong, maybe they just wanted somethin' to do!!!!! "

 Really Sad wrote on August 27, 2008 7:04 am:
" If you read here...more and more are qualifying for assistance. Yes it is placing a burden on the system but the system placed a burden on us. We have lost jobs, we have lost our homes, we have lost our medical, we have lost our self-esteem, we have lost (insert your own). All this I will lower tax hype is just that hype. It's a political arena for votes people. It takes more than just the President waving his magic wand and saying, "Okay, lower taxes, balanced budget and healthy income for all." If this was true, I would have waved my wand years ago. Yes I USE to be in the middle class. I have the same job but now I am in the lower class due to cost of living increasing. Granted I do not qualify for assistance being a family of one but still the same I struggle. We are paying for the huge CEO stock options. They are smart enough and pay their accountants enough to hide their true growth. Nothing is going to get better by pure tax cuts. Infrastructures of city, counties and states need to stop putting their burden on us as we simply can't afford it. "

 Tired of Whining wrote on August 27, 2008 7:36 am:
" I would really like to know why, as Christians, we are expected to just keep our mouths shut and stop "bible-thumping" and trying to dictate civil law. Traffic has to stop for the Gay/Lesbian communities to be able to express their beliefs, yet when a Christian says that they aren't willing to accept that something they believe very strongly against they are preaching and being horribly judgemental? Why is it that anyone crying out for "equal" rights (which we all know actually means special rights) is allowed to quote and mis-quote the bible all day long but anytime a Christian tries to use the foundation of their beliefs to explain their side of the arguement they're told that they're just spitting out rhetoric and to try to explain things without using the bible? I can understand why a Gay/Lesbian couple would want to have laws in effect that allow life-saving decisions, death benefits, etc to be carried across to a partner. Why is it, however, that in order for to happen I am expected to lay down the core of my beliefs in the sake of fairness and have laws passed without being able to make an arguement? Gay/Lesbian activists claim to want "equal" rights but you can't even handle equal arguements? I have never once believed that God hates anyone, and I personally have a very strong, but it does specifically state that God does hate the ACT of homosexuality. Why should I allow my beliefs to be trampled so that others can make laws that shred the basis of my beliefs and the beliefs that I will encourage in my children and allow a state of further lost ideals and fundamentals for my future generations without as much as the ability to argue with your point of view? Why are you so scared to allow Christians to argue and debate in the exact same manner that Gay/Lesbian organizations are? "

 Lincoln Business is Hurting Us wrote on August 27, 2008 8:00 am:
" Hey they are. The major manufactures in Lincoln are employing through employment agency they are connect through to avoid insurance and benefits. They are temporary workers and must comply to different set of rules that are almost impossible to live with to maintain a job. YES they struggle as if they call in sick once in 30 days, they are on probation. If they are sent home due to lack of work, again it goes against their attendance. NO BENEFITS. We need to look at them as what else are they hiding. Am talking Kawaski, how many do you know have been a victim? There are numerous more,using "temporary" agencies to hide taxes, to treat people unfair. So BEFORE we put more burden on the people struggling, look at those that are profiting from unfair practices. Oh yes and then they have layoff but tell unemployment you are fired. Workforce knows the truth but can't prove anything..again to hide their responsibility. This is new era of jobs in Lincoln. And we give them corporate incentives--for what??? These workers have no rights because even after 2 years they are still considered "temporary." What are we doing to ourselves? Why is this happening? No wonder economy is struggling, no wonder we are all two bricks from losing our minds with frustration, we try and try and continue to have doors closed. So make these companies responsible. Make them pay the taxes they should be paying. "

 Hamon Righ wrote on August 27, 2008 8:13 am:
" Marriage, just so you know was not started by God or religion. Marriage, so you people who make pronouncements from on high based on what someone told them instead of educating themselves, was started to build unions between families for land rights, wealth, and stature; not as a loving union of a man and woman. Most of the time, niether the husband nor wife had any say about it.
And, how does two men or two women you don't know getting married have any effect on the strenth of your marriage David? Will it immediately dissolve your love and unity? Does it make your marriage any less valid? If so, how? Saying God says so, doesn't cut it anymore. "

 Josh wrote on August 27, 2008 8:14 am:
" Tired of whining: maybe it is because we are sick of the hypocritical way you pick and choose waht to believe from that Bible of yours. Sure, you go off about the 'sanctity of marriage (a civil contract, by the way), yet where are the proposed amendments to the constitution banning divorce? Maybe we are sick of you picking and choosing from your Bible to discriminate, prevent adoptions (think of the children!), Maybe it is because you use the same old tired passage with no idea of context. Maybe you should stop ignoring 2/4 of what the Bible tells you to do. Why should I keep my mouth shut and have my rights trampled? "

 Hey wrote on August 27, 2008 3:19 pm:
" What about a man's right to choose whether to support a child or not? "

 Get over it wrote on August 27, 2008 3:22 pm:
" It should not matter whether marriage is M/F, M/M, M/F/F, M/M/F/M... to each their own. "

 Marriage wrote on August 27, 2008 4:07 pm:
" Why don't we heterosexuals stop worrying about the "sanctity of marriage" by restricting it to one man and one woman? Last time I checked, we have made a mockery of "the institution" of marriage as our marriages fail at least as often as they succeed. I see a general lack of respect of the "sanctity of marriage" from heterosexuals. Why don't we let homosexuals have their shot at what we have clearly blundered? They couldn't do any worse! "

 Hamon Righ wrote on August 27, 2008 7:21 pm:
" To "Tired of Whining"- Here's the difference. Gay people speak out to change things so they have the right to let themselves personally live how they believe. This doesn't really affect anyone but the gay people.

"Bible thumpers" speak out to change things so that everyone else has to live in accordance with the way "bible thumpers" believe. This affects everyone.

So, why now do "thumpers" feel they have to speak out so vehemently against gay marriage? I'd really like to hear a logical, persuasive argument. "God" or "the bible" says so won't work. It would be akin to me quoting the Koran, Buddah, or any number of other alternate belief systems to a "bible thumper". "

 BicycleMike wrote on August 27, 2008 11:05 pm:
" We very well could be on the verge of another cold war unless the powers that be on both sides use their heads... but oh yeah, the most important thing going is that "Tom" and Bill" are not allowed to get married. I think we should look at the bigger picture and prioritize. "

 Gay marriage doesnt hurt wrote on August 29, 2008 4:08 pm:
" For those of you against gay marriage, I truly do not understand how it hurts you? How it hurts your life or your marriage? Simply stated, it doesn't affect you at all. What business is it of mine if my neighbors are married? NONE! So please stop trying to dictate who can and cannot enter into a legal, civil contract. As someone so eloquently stated previously, marriage in this country is not official--by that, I mean legal--unless and until a license issued by the government is signed by all applicable parties.

It doesn't hurt you, your religion, or your marriage if a gay couple marries, so why don't you come down from your pedestal and own up to the REAL reason you don't want to allow homosexuals to marry. Methinks I already know the answer... "

Ads by Yahoo!