Hard to believe I am with 苏老师 on this one :)

I have to disagree with you on a couple of points you made.

1. "the higher earners still end up with more money than the lower earners do" doesn't make levying higher tax on the rich right (or fair).

2. "all-in-all the United States welfare system provides help to those who need it." This statement only told half of the story. The United States welfare system also hands out tons of easy money to people who haven't tried hard enough to make a good living for themselves.

3. "earning $200 000 per year is indeed rich." This evaluation is absolutely debatable. As you know, the vast majority of those who earn $200,000 live in the metropolitan areas with significantly higher living expense. I wouldn't call a household in NYC with an annual income of $200,000 “rich”.

4. "If it were radical, health care would be single-payer by now and most banks would have been nationalized." The reasoning here doesn't sound quite right to me. We all know that what OB's administration finally got was not exactly what it wanted at the first place. The end result only suggested that “The Country”, not OB Inc., is not radical.

Quite a heavy subject for weekend... :D

所有跟帖： 

• 说的好！ -用户名被占用了- ♂ -用户名被占用了 -用户名被占用了- ♂ (0 bytes) () 09/10/2010 postreply 18:27:50

• 谢谢啦，小门小户的，床底下写写罢了~~ -^3.1415926^- -SJSharks- ♂ (0 bytes) () 09/10/2010 postreply 21:02:11