I doubt I could bring myself to vote for Edwards. I really get the idea he leaves a slim trail. I KNOW I wouldn't buy a used car from the guy.

I wouldn't vote for Hillary either. The few issues I've followed her voting on, I've disagreed with. Otherwise, she - or the powers that pull her cords - have mastered the art of the perfect poll pander.

Also Hillary would be the worst Democratic candidate; she would alienate even the most discouraged Republican candidate. You'd probably get more swing voters by nominating Osama bin Laden.

As much as I'd love to see a female president, she isn't it. I'd even prefer Barbara Boxer over Hillary and THAT's scary.

I'm keeping my opinions open about Obama and Richardson. Obama doesn't have the experience but I don't necessarily see that as a bad thing. Richardson I know far too little about. Bush didn't have any experience in setting up an evil empire and look where we are.

What I've seen of Edwards in interviews he doesn't come off as leaving a slime trail to me. Maybe it's just the polished trial lawyer thing. Or maybe it's the way people are trying to paint him as a class traitor because he's rich now, but keeps pointing to his blue-collar roots.

My problem with Obama isn't that he doesn't have enough exsperiance, it's that I haven't had a chance to really judge his record.

WRT Hillary, and the perfect poll pander...that's what I mean by puck chasing.

I love the puck chasing term. Perfect! On the others, especially Obama. Do we really want universal health care and even more federal dollars in education? When is the last time you saw the federal government do *anything* efficiently? Both ideas, especially health care, are socialist. Sorry, but I pay enough taxes already. Besides, I really like getting the health care I need *when* I need it.

Mark,

Thanks for your kind comments. Now on to the criticism, which I also appreciate.

If public education is socialist, then so were Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine...and probably a few other notable Americans.

I don't know about "universal health care" I've seen that term used dismissivly as an umbrella perjorative for any kind of accessibility plan. Is it price controls? Thomas Pain worked on implemeting price controls for necessary goods and services, and prevent war profiteering (though he later turned against price control and advocated currency reform...both government techniques for meddling in the market). Is it just the idea that social justice isn't the government's job? Thoroughly addressed in Agrarian Justice (where he proposed a rudimentary form of social security, based in the concept of social justice, and directly making the government responsible for it's administration).

And as for getting health care *when* you need it, how does that happen under privatized care? How many people out there get no health care at all? How many are stuck in HMO-type plans where the doctors they see refuse to give them tests or referrals for care they need, but the doctor won't authorize it? How many people are stuck with very limited plans that won't pay for any care for conditions they were sick with before they got insurance?

I don't see how insuring accessibility for these people is "socialist", and I haven't heard of any serious discussion of plans that would take away your insurance if you have it and are happy with it.

These ideas, or the precursors for them were invented long before anything known as "socialism" or "communism". And they many were favored or advocated by people that "Libertarians" seem to idolize, as long as they can quote them VERY selectivly. Then again, I once sent a bunch of Lincoln quotes to a conservative I was arguing with via e-mail, and asked him who said them. He figured they must be from Mao or Marx.

Finally, to the question of if the governement has ever done anything efficiently. That depends on a few things. What are your standards of "efficient?" "Efficient" like paying a multi-million dollar severance package to an executive that you fired for underperformance? Managing your business with no eye for anything other than next quarter's bottom line, thus passing up opportunities for long-term viability of your company? Cooking your books so that you make a HUGE pile of money, but ultimatly endanger the economy of your country and destroy the economic future of your employees?

If your standards are the exploits of private enterprise, I'd say the Federal Government does just brilliantly.


:-)

Thanks for your kind words. This is going to be fun. I don't have a lot of time, but I feel the need to respond.

Well I see that we have very differing views on the role of the government and private enterprises (business). Public education isn't socialist; it's just the individual States' responsibility. Jefferson's views on public education in no way involved federal dollars, only state. I don't know about Mr. Paine, but I'm sure you do (I hear you are Thomas Paine reincarnated!).

HMOs - Oh brother! What a mess that is. Do you know who (basically) invented the HMO concept? Ted Kennedy! The rules and regulations that HMOs must follow were created by the federal government! And yes, in their zest to "protect" us from unscrupulous doctors, the HMOs are preventing much of the care we need. It's not the doctors that are refusing treatment, it's the HMO. If the government got its grubby hands out of the insurance business, health costs would be much more affordable.

I'm a big believer in the 10th amendment. If it's not authorized in the Constitution, then it's the States' responsibility.

As far as business goes - sure there's been misuse. And the people misusing the system normally pay a heavy price. You know the old adage, "crime doesn't pay."

Why do you hate business? It is main reason this county has become so rich and powerful. It is the main reason we are living so much longer and healthier than at any other time.

Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine were also big believers in protecting individual rights and freedoms. Which, unfortunately for you, also covers running a business and pursuing happiness! They believed in a small, focused government. They rebelled against the King for far less than we put up with today.

Oh Mark, I thought you want us to be fair and avoid hyperbole. :-( and I was ready to change just for you and everything.

I don't hate business...I just think that large corporations are as much, or more, of a potential threat to our personal liberties as any government we’ve ever had, and I’d like to be able to work along with my fellow citizens (through the government) to defend myself against them. That would be tough to do with a government that could be “drowned in a bathtub”.

...wait...who said I was Thomas Paine reincarnated? That's impossible! Neither one of us believes in reincarnation… if your going to goose me about reading everything the man ever wrote that’s been published, I’m going to start to suspect that your Ben’s first attempt at a sock puppet. :-)
But moving right along, below is a history section of the Wikipedia entry on HMO’s. It doesn’t say anything about Ted Kennedy, but I assume he must be involved with the Health Maintenance Organization Act of 1973. Which, if you read the history, included a dual choice provision which expired in 1995, which is when we started having the trouble I complain of from HMOs. LACK of government interference in business…tich tich. It can lead to such heart-ache.
It almost sounds like the legislation you criticized (I assume it’s the same one)INCREASED competition, and lead to people having more choice, more options, and more control over their individual health until the government interference expired.

History
The earliest form of HMOs can be seen in a number of prepaid health plans. In 1910, the Western Clinic in Tacoma, Washington offered lumber mill owners and their employees certain medical services from its providers for a premium of $0.50 per member per month. This is considered by some to be the first example of an HMO. However, [1929], Ross-Loos Medical Group, is considered to be the first health maintenance organization (HMO) in the United States, Ross-Loos which was established in Los Angeles to meet the Los Angeles County Department of Water and Power employees DWP. Approximately 500 DWP employees enrolled at a cost of $1.50 each per month. Within a year, the Los Angeles Fire Department signed up, then the Los Angeles Police Department, then the Southern California Telephone Company, (now AT&T) and more. By 1951, enrollment stood at 35,000 and included teachers, county and city employees. In 1982 through the merger of the Insurance Company of North America (INA) founded in 1792 and Connecticut General (CG) founded in 1865 came together to become CIGNA. Ross-Loos Medical Group, became now known as CIGNA HealthCare. Also in 1929 Dr. Michael Shadid created a health plan in Elk City, Oklahoma in which farmers bought shares for $50 to raise the money to build a hospital. The medical community did not like this arrangement and threatened to suspend Shadid's licence. The Farmer's Union took control of the hospital and the health plan in 1934. Also in 1929, Baylor Hospital provided approximately 1,500 teachers with prepaid care. This was the origin of Blue Cross. Around 1939, state medical societies created Blue Shield plans to cover physician services, as Blue Cross covered only hospital services. These prepaid plans burgeoned during the Great Depression as a method for providers to ensure constant and steady revenue.
In 1970, the number of HMOs declined to less than 40. Paul Ellwood, often called the "father" of the HMO, began having discussions with what is today the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services that led to the enactment of the Health Maintenance Organization Act of 1973. This act had three main provisions:
Grants and loans were provided to plan, start, or expand an HMO
Certain state-imposed restrictions on HMOs were removed if the HMOs were federally certified
Employers with 25 or more employees were required to offer federally certified HMO options alongside indemnity upon request
This last provision, called the dual choice provision, was the most important, as it gave HMOs access to the critical employer-based market that had often been blocked in the past. The federal government was slow to issue regulations and certify plans until 1977, when HMOs began to grow rapidly. The dual choice provision expired in 1995.
Since 1990, Switzerland has funded several HMOs, covering 10 percent of the Swiss population as of March 2006. The percentage would be much higher if there were HMOs in all regions. There are mountainous regions where the population density is too low to support HMOs. [citation needed]

Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine were indeed in favor of individual liberties. And they saw a federal government as being essential to the protection of those liberties.

In particular, that the right of individuals to run a business and pursue happiness should not DECREASE the happiness of the the people at large (the job of government is to increase the general happiness of the society, a concept expressed by both of them). So, you can't run a business and lie to people about the safety of your product and not pay a price. You can't put damaging chemicals in the food and suppress knowledge of the effects of that additive without paying a price.

I don't see "The market" exacting a price for irresponsible actions on the parts of executives, for instance, they just get other jobs at other companies, making just as much money. I don't see how that's so awful.

Tthe Thomases sure wouldn't stand up for the rights of tobacco companies to add addictive agents to their products to make it harder to quit, for instance.

So what so the people have, what tool does the society have that the people can use to prevent the rich and powerful companies from walking all over them? From entering employees homes with decrees that they have to marry their live-in boyfriends or be fired (just for instance)?

Really? It's all Ted Kennedy's fault?

IT IS with great pleasure that I today sign into law S. 14, the Health Maintenance Organization Act of 1973. This legislation will enable the Federal Government to help demonstrate the feasibility of the HMO concept over the next 5 years.
Expanding the geographic distribution of health maintenance organizations is an integral part of the National Health Strategy that I first proposed nearly 3 years ago. S. 14 is somewhat broader than the Administration's proposal, but it nevertheless contains the essential concepts and principles that I support. It will provide initial Federal development assistance for a limited number of demonstration projects, with the intention that they become self-sufficient within fixed periods.
The national health insurance bill that I will be submitting to the next session of this Congress will allow patients to use such insurance to join HMO's. For that reason, it is particularly important that this demonstration effort get underway immediately and build upon the momentum which has already been achieved in this field.
Health maintenance organizations provide health care to their members on a prepaid basis with emphasis on essential preventive services. The establishment of HMO's will allow people to select for themselves either a prepaid system for obtaining health services or the more traditional approach which has served the American people so well over the years.

--Richard Nixon (statement on Signing the Health Maintenance Organization Act of 1973)
Here’s the URL for the whole speech: http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=4092

Teresa you depend way too much on Wikipedia. Ted Kennedy is the author of the bill that Nixon signed into law. In his own words on March 3rd, 1978:

"Today the Subcommittee on Health and Scientific Research holds hearings on proposed amendments to federal statutes supporting the development of health maintenance organizations...These amendments would extend and strengthen current authorities supporting HMOs in this country....

"As the author of the first HMO bill ever to pass the Senate, I find this spreading support for HMOs truly gratifying. Just a few years ago, proponents of health maintenance organizations faced bitter opposition from organized medicine..."

Read the rest of the article here (it's short): http://www.forhealthfreedom.org/Publications/Choice/ThenAndNow.html

If you read the article, you'll see that the esteemed Mr. Kennedy feels much different about HMOs today. Now he wants to meddle even more!

It's just more of the Government getting in the way instead of letting the public decide what is best for them.


Now on to "big" business. You're right, the Thomases wouldn't stand for the "rights" of tobacco companies toi add addictive agents to their products. I'm sure that the Thomases, upon absolute confirmation - without a doubt - that tobacco products cause cancer, would pass laws banning these same products. It would be the right thing to do. Unlike todays politicians, I like to believe that the early framers of our country would do the right thing.

The problem you have with big business isn't really with business. The problem is the money they put in our unprincipled politician's pockets! Why don't we just outlaw tobacco? Why don't we help cure the "disease" of addiction to tobacco that so many people still have and outlaw the product altoghether? It's the right thing to do, isn't it? It's still legal because of the money it generates for the government! Plain and simple.

For all his faults, Ross Perot had one thing right. Removing lobbyists from Washington is SO NEEDED.

And I don't understand this question: "So what so the people have, what tool does the society have that the people can use to prevent the rich and powerful companies from walking all over them?" What tools? Are you serious? They have the law! And if principles instead of money ran Washington the laws would work so much better. And I don't mean laws that create funds to help private organizations, which is what Ted Kennedy did with the HMO act. I mean the basic laws of equality and treatment of citizens. These laws DO exist. So what company can LEGALLY tell a woman that she must marry her live-in boyfriend or be fired. The answer is quite simply, none of them.

Our politicians make too much money and spend WAY too much time in Washington. They should have "real" jobs. They should receive scant little for their "service" to our country. If this were the case, then it would be much more difficult to become corupt! Without the money, they would be in too much of a hurry to pass the laws that needed attention so they could get back to work.

Where oh WHERE has common sense gone?

Whew! I got a little wound up there. I do so love debates like this. Thanks so much! Don't take my comments as an attack on you. I try not to get personal. There are some topics that I'm passionate about and this is one of them.

Mark,

I don't "depend" in Wikipedia really, although I guess it can look like that because I cite it quite a bit on the Internet. It is good for getting a sketch of an issue very quickly, though it has some inaccuracies, some entries have clear biases, and of course, don't usually give a comlete treatement of the subject. It is easier to cite than just about anything, and I don't cite anything that seems "fishy". I never denied, based on Wikipedia, that Kennedy had anything to do with the bill. I was more interested in what the bill was intended to do, how the conditions of the bill changed about the same time that HMO's started to seriously malfunction, and the probable causes.

But it wasn't from Wikipedia that I got the quote from Nixon's signing statement voicing how much he approved of the act, and how it was just what he asked for three years previously, and how it was a big part of HIS PLAN for the country's medical system.

Anyway, You don't address the point I made about how HMO's have changed since 1995 after the lapse of one of the provisions of this bill that required employers to offer both kinds of plans. Kennedy might have changed his position on HMO's because the way HMO's actually do business has changed.

I find it interesting that you want to outlaw tobacco. Are you sure you are conservative? Doesn't that sound like the heavy hand of government? I think it's still legal because rabid "Libertarians" like Rush Limbaugh's followers would riot in the streets if you made it illegal. Hell, you had "smoking rights activits" lighing up in non-smoking sections and waving the damned things in the faces of the waitstaff yelling "it's a free country!" just because private businesses were required to have "segregated" smoking and non-smoking sections. Just outright outlawing tobacco would be seen as another one of those "unhinged liberal anti-freedom" measures. Hey, I think it would probably be a good thing if you could do it, but good luck with that. Your fellow conservatives would brand you a communist and eat you alive though.

I DO think the campaign financing thing is an issue as well, but votes are what decide elections, and corrupt politicians are a hell of a lot easier to find than unscrupulous busnessmen, and there are fewer of them to watch. More attention needs to be paid to lobbyists, but you'll never get rid of them, because there are also lobbyists that serve small grass-roots concerns that have a difficult time being heard any other way.

When you say we have laws to protect us, that's all fine and dandy, but who enforces the laws? The government. And if the government is "small enough to be drowned in the bathtub" how would it enforce those laws against a multi-billion dollar mega corp? I think conservatives haven't thought that through exactly.

Here is a link to the entry I was referring to when I referenced the woman who was ordered to either marry her live-in boyfriend or lose her job (she also had the option of moving out)

http://www.anomalousdata.com/PermaLink,guid,be8d37df-0033-4cf4-af85-cf8d5d0ccd18.aspx

In this particular case, the woman won in court, but there was a hue and cry over it. Once again, religious conservatives angry that in activist judge had "disobeyed the law".

Seven states have anti-cohabitation laws. I imagine that an employer in any one of those states would have a chance of winning a case if an employee fought such a demand.

What about the woman who was fired by her employer for driving a car with a "John Kerry" bumper sticker in the last election? I havn't heard anything about her getting her job back. If you live in a "right to work" state, you can be fired for any reason within a period of time (I think it's 90 days) and they don't even have to tell you why you were fired.

Politicians have always needed accountability and oversight, and business has always gone where the power is. That's just the way it is. The means of effecting that oversight have to change. We've always relied on the Anna Nichol Smith Ghoul Squad - I mean media -to help us, but they are failing us terribly. Then there are the fringe wackos on the right defending some bad businesses in their wrong behaviors in the name of "free enterprise" to the point where as soon as someone says the words "free market" , I throw up in my mouth a little bit; defending businesses unde influence on the politicians under "freedom of speech", and responding to critics of their "movement" with mob action and threats of violence.

If these conditions persist or worsen, I don't see those laws doing us one bit of good going forward.

It's not that I want to outlaw tobacco. I could care less one way or the other. I was tying to use it as an example of the government "doing the right thing." The point being that the government doesn't really care about the right thing and that $$$ is what drives their decisions. A point you missed completely.

Just what do you mean when you say things like if the government "is small enough to be drowned in the bathtub" anyway? How would it enforce those laws? Are you kidding?!? The size of government and the power of the enforcement angencies are two entirely different things!

If you'd rather have "Big Brother" taking care of your every need, while at the same time removing much of your ability to do the things you WANT, then I suggest you try living in practically any other country in the world for a while. You'll be back...

And you still haven't addressed my comment about our Thomases rebelling against the King for far less than we put up with today. You can bet that they had no desire for Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare, or any other entitlements offered by the federal government today. For sure they wouldn't put up with the taxation required to support these failing programs.

And now you liberals want to add UHC to the list. Medicare and Medicaid *IS* UHC and they are both flailing in paperwork and overburdened regulations.

Mark,

I didn't miss the point about $$$ driving government decisions. I thought that's what conservatives wanted. At least that seems to be implied in all the demands that "government be run like a business". Not what's right, but what costs less in the short term, and brings the most immediate benefits to the top stakeholders. Even better, from what I’ve seen, conservatives love to legislate “moral” issues, because they cost very little and make their base feel good.

The government "small enough to be drowned in a bathtub" is an oft-repeated conservative mantra coined by American's for Tax Reform founder Grover Norquist. They don't just go after national politicians, though. They also operate on a state and local level.

In fact, the pressure from groups like that to keep taxes low across the board has caused our Republican governor to propose State-mandated limits on local taxes, because local governments have been raising taxes to make up for problems caused by cuts at the Federal and State level. So Republican SAY they are for greater local control, but then pass laws to negate it when the locals decide they like to have their children educated, their laws enforced, and their streets and public areas maintained and improved. Of course, when poor areas can’t raise money by raising local taxes, that’s just their own fault, and their people just have to live with the consequences. Ah…conservative “logic”.

Two more quotes from Grover Norquist:
"Cutting the government in half in one generation is both an ambitious and reasonable goal.”
“ If we work hard we will accomplish this and more by 2025. Then the conservative movement can set a new goal. I have a recommendation: To cut government in half again by 2050".

Power comes from people. How do you enforce laws? You have to have people to investigate, people to enforce, people to adjudicate, people to carry out the sentences. If you don't have money, you can't hire the people, if you can't hire the people, you can't fill the jobs, if you can't get the jobs filled, you can't get the jobs done, and if you can't get the jobs done, you can't say a government agency has any real power.

I don't need "big brother to take care of my every need"...just those that I can't take care of myself. Pain divided rights into two groups “the rights of personal competency” and “civil rights”. Rights of personal competency were the rights that an individual could protect on his own. Civil rights were those that he needed government to protect on his behalf. As our society has grown more complex, as the pace of life and business has become faster, and as power and influence has become consolidated increasingly in large, impersonal, amoral juggernauts that feel no loyalty or duty to any community or government, it has become more and more difficult for individuals to defend the rights that once fell under the rubric of “personal competency”.

Some people have more ability to care for themselves than others. I don’t mind taking care of the disabled or the elderly, or the orphaned, or even those who can’t find a job for long periods of time. Many people I care deeply about have found themselves temporarily in need of the “nanny state” as you so callously put it…yet when their needs were met they were able to improve themselves by getting counseling, getting treatment for their illnesses, or updating their education and skills. They re-entered the workforce and were more productive and more able to contribute, and in some cases multiplied the taxes that they were able to pay before. It wasn't easy, as it is very difficult to get help and keep it long enough for it to do you any good, and those who want to use the system to improve themselves frequently have to "cheat" in order to succeed. I suppose it would have been more “efficient” to just let them fail and rot at the bottom of society because of some small but vital malfunction in their lives. The numbers of people in this category will continue to increase if something is not done to change it (the largest growing demographic for those using food shelves in Minnesota, for instance, is in the suburban middle class)

If you can afford to live in a gated community with a private water supply and a lab for testing food safety and air filters for clean, breathable air, have the means to pay any and every specialist that you might need to see for your mental and physical health, have your own transportation that doesn’t use roads, and don’t mind letting people who are not competent to supply all those needs for themselves suffer the consequences, then by all means, keep towing the party line about the “nanny state”. I hope you never have need of it.

As for what things I WANT. Yes, conservatives have been so good about allowing the things that I WANT. Like being able to attend the weddings of some of my dear friends here in my home state of Minnesota, with full human rights as citizens and people despite their being the same sex. Oh wait, I can’t. Oh! I know! I really appreciate the Republican’s defense of my right to make an overseas call without being spied on. No…that’s not it? The guarantee that I have the freedom to not have my personal mail opened by government agents?? The security of knowing that government agent don’t kidnap and rendition innocent people to third-party countries to be tortured I the name of my “safety?” No…

Well, I’m sure there’s SOMETHING I want that the republicans have defended. Oh yeah! I have the right to hunt! ‘course, the right to hunt won’t be much good without maintaining healthy environmental conditions for the animals to be hunted…but even when they are gone, I bet we’ll still have the right to hunt them. And THAT’S not nothing.

As to what the Thomases rebelled against, all I ever heard them object to in the way of taxes were taxes that went to supporting standing armies, prosecuting wars, repressing the public, and paying for the positions of a parasitic upper class. There was no objection to spending on social justice programs or government barriers to inherited wealth.
They both worried that we would end up with, instead of a country ruled by a feudal aristocracy, a country ruled by a monied aristocracy. They both proposed civil programs that resemble many of today’s “nanny state” institutions, to address the needs of the time. Of course, these ideas have grown in complexity and scope as our society has grown in complexity and size…and along with it, the government institutions needed to administer them.

Also, they assumed that in a society where people saw the potential for their work to advance them in society, people would want to work, and would take temporary work provided by the state if need be for their welfare. So workfare was proposed, in particular by Thomas Paine. However, the workhouses would be voluntary, administered by the government, and the workers would get direct benefit from their labor…as opposed to being farmed out to low-paying jobs. Only able-bodied people of working age would go there. Paine proposed government pensions for the elderly, orphaned children, the disabled, and war veterans. He also advocated a one-time payment to young men upon their reaching the age of 21, to help them start out in an independent life.

My guess is, if you read Agrarian Justice, you wouldn't like Tom Paine very much at all, actually.

Oh, and MORE information about Grover Norquist, my favorite Anti-Tax Nazi. Him and Abramov were busy boys together.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/24/AR2006062401080.html

You are confusing the terms "conservative" and "republican" - Although repulicans want you to believe they are, he certainly aren't the same. About Gov. Norquist. Who?? Never heard of him. Don't make him out to be a hero of mine. Look, I don't mind taking care of "disabled or the elderly, or the orphaned, or even those who can’t find a job for long periods of time." I don't know anyone who does. It's the people that make a living out of abusing these programs that bother me - and their are millions of them.

You read me completely wrong on many of your arguments because you assume I am a republican.

Here's the short of it - I am: conservative, pro choice, believe that gays should be allowed the same rights as married couples (call it civil union or whatever), believe in individual rights - not group rights. I want the federal government to do what the constitution allows it to do and nothing more. The states have pretty much carte blanche to do whatever they want. And I have the right to move to another state if I don't like it. I believe that most people are like me - with small differences - even you! The problem is that "we the people" are only given two basic choices that are a blend of what we believe in. One side says they believe in some of what I believe in. The other side says they believe in what's left. The public, more and more, doesn't believe in either because both parties are missing a "real" core belief system.

It's awful! I have very few people in Washington working for me - or you. And they wonder why nobody votes...

Mark,

"It's awful! I have very few people in Washington working for me - or you. And they wonder why nobody votes..."

Well, at least wew can agree on that.

In all fairness, it is difficult to tell what someone means when they identify themselves as "conservative". I even know a guy who says he's conservative and who thinks that liberals are the ones who oppose public smoking bans and are opposed to gun control! He's pro choice, and at least not anti gay marriage, and votes Republican. But he married a woman he says is liberal. *shakes head* I just go with what most people seem to mean when they say they are conservative, but there are definately anomalies out there.

Nobody likes people who abuse the system. There are rich people who abuse the system, and poor people who abuse the system. The rich are better at it, and take much, much more. The poor are more numerous, and can do some damage for sure...but the white collar criminals cause a lot more misery, heartache, and damage to our economy and our government than what even a couple legions of welfare queens can get away with. So I worry more about them

Grover Norquist is the most influential (and ambitious) anti-tax activist out there. Since taxes are a subject you are passionate about, I figured you would have heard of him.

Anyway, this has been fun, thanks.