The Ultimate Sacrifice

[Eagler]

The average age was 23...

"When you ask men to die, endure great hardship, they have the right to know the purpose that demands that sacrifice. They have the right to be treated like men-with all the honor due them-all honor due their inextinguishable souls .."

Once An Eagle by Anton Myrer

<S>
 http://www.sptimes.com/News/101400/Worldandnation/The_lives_they_took.shtml

<S>

Eagler

[Maverick]

To serve is to risk all. To risk all is a calling few these days take. Many have no calling to place themselves in harms way for the benefit of others. It's too easy to sit back and let others do it for you. Then later to criticise them for being there and doing the job they were given.

These young people risked and lost their lives in an unfamiliar land. May they have calm seas and fair winds on their journey.

<SALUTE>


Mav

[Toad]

Hackworth has it right.
 http://www.newsmax.com/showinside.shtml?a=2000/10/16/220741

Too lazy to link?  

Hackworth said the Navy's inability to refuel at sea was a direct result of declining military readiness during the Clinton-Gore years.

"We go to the point of readiness. Admiral Clark, the chief of naval operations, said, 'Look, we had to go there because we couldn't refuel at sea cause we don't have any tankers, any oilers.' So as a result of that, why don't we have any oilers? Why didn't the chiefs of the United States Navy sound off?"

"We've got this argument going on between Bush and Gore," said Hackworth. "Bush says readiness sucks. Gore says everything's peachy keen. All of the brass are sitting there with their mouths shut. But now we don't have enough oilers to refuel that ship and we lose those people because our readiness is not squared away?"

Hackworth confirmed that 22 of the Navy's refueling tankers have been placed in mothballs since 1993, and that the overall fleet had declined from 435 ships to 311 during the Clinton-Gore years.



[This message has been edited by Toad (edited 10-18-2000).]

[Eagler]

Yes, he does Toad. It's sad that the Gore administration throws out the fact that "government" is smaller than when they took over in 93. What they don't explain is the majority of those cuts were in the military. Then the have the kahona's to spread what's left of the military, paper thin playing global cops and media distraction. Sad that more average Americans don't see that. If the "town hall" questions last night are an indication, they are all just sitting around seeing what else the government will do for them, not what they can do for themselves. They want the government to be a Robin Hood, taking from the rich and giving to the poor. Amazing..

Eagler

[Toad]

Affirm, Eagler.

The Tax issue is a prime example.

"According to preliminary data released by the Internal Revenue Service, the top-earning one percent of U.S. taxpayers (annual income over $250,736) made 17.4 percent of the income earned in 1997 and paid 33.2 percent of the total federal individual income taxes collected that year."

The top five percent of income earners made 31.8 percent of all income in 1997, but paid 51.9 percent of all federal individual income taxes.

Similarly, the top 10 percent of earners made 42.8 percent of all income in 1997 but paid 63.2 percent of all federal individual income taxes.

"At the other end of the income spectrum, the bottom 50 percent of the nation's taxpayers earned only 13.8 percent of all income in 1997, but they paid an even smaller fraction of the federal individual income taxes collected--4.3 percent."

So, if you give a "straight percentage" tax cut...say 5%...who will have the highest dollar value returned?

The ones who pay the most money IN, of course. To some people this is an apparently EVIL concept.

If you do it using the "AlGorerhythmic Method" the people who pay in the most get....nothing back! That's a nice touch.

The people who pay in absolutely nothing get quite a bit "back". Gotta be a popular move with the folks who pay absolutely nothing.

In the old days, they used to call this a "governmental transfer of wealth".  You earn some money, the government takes it away and gives it to someone. You get no say in the matter.

Good deal.

Didn't the Romans vote themselves "bread and circuses"? Didn't last long, as I recall.

 

[Gunthr]

Good stuff here <S> I wish Bush could get the message across that clearly.