Jatuporn And Other Red-Shirt Leaders Blow The Whistle On Coup

[jayboy]

Your point 1 ----- "yet none of them found anything offensive in the remarks" is simply not true. Why was it the army chief that ordered the complaint to be made? It is a central role in the army to protect the monarchy. The DSI is on board with the charges as well, as they are going after bail revocation. "A few weeks after" appears to be wrong as well.

I have seen what Jatuporn said and it was not LM - not even close, certainly irritating for the army.

Why did the army chief order the complaint to be made? There are some powerful arguments that he has a vested interest (to protect his sorry backside) in maintaining hysteria on all fronts prior to the election, whether lying about the Red threat to the monarchy or stirring up trouble on the Cambodian border.

If you seriously believe the army ludicrous rhetoric, it's quite possible we can never have a rational discussion.The top brass main concern is of course to feather their nests.

[timekeeper]

There are other entities besides the Army that are pressing for charges against the speeches made, eg. the DSI for one and the Network of Citizen Volunteers for another. It's not only the "head of the Army" that has found their comments offensive.

http://www.thaivisa....dpost&p=4365179

Additionally, even members of the Pheu Thai Party have voiced their displeasure and have sought to distance themselves from Jatuporn and the other Pheu Thai Party/Red Shirt offenders.

http://www.thaivisa....dpost&p=4365258

Lastly, the prosecutors that the DSI supplied evidence to in their case also seem to think the speeches were illegal.

http://www.thaivisa....dpost&p=4372216

As to the Jatuporn case if the accounts I have read are correct he simply posed a very relevant question.There was no LM

Thank you for your opinion.

Let's see what the court's opinion is with all the evidence in.

Yes we all have such confidence in the Thai courts with their reputation for integrity,incorruptibility and honesty.Above all they are never ever "directed" to come to a conclusion for the political advantage of a dominating and greedy elite.So I agree we can face their deliberations with confidence.

Thank you for you contribution.

Mr Thaksin - 2.2 million baht in bribe money stuffed in a lunch box-three legal members of his staff jailed -corrupt? Thaksin? never........?

i am chasing the Jayboy award to weave Thaksin into a bad light in every thread.

its not difficult, i have a very broad canvas to work with...........

[Buchholz]

Perhaps there were other groups, organizations, etc., who may have found some comments "offensive", but apparently not to the point of filing LM charges.

The two other entities in the first link I provided are filing charges.

Immediacy has never been a strong suit in criminal or civil cases in Thailand and is not really indicative of the aspects you aspire them to be.

Edited April 22, 2011 by Buchholz

[GarryP]

I just can't help but believe that if PTP won the next election, the men in green would be out out in force quick sticks. They cannot afford a PTP gov't. They would find some excuse such as defending this or that institution blah, blah, blah, but the bottom line is that they are defending their own interests, which has sod all to do with democracy.

And coming out and saying there will be no coup means squat. You start flicking their balls and they will be out faster than twice the speed of Jatuporn's mouth, and that is fast.

[TheyCallmeScooter]

If the remarks were that offensive, why were charges not filed the next day by these other groups, and why did it take nearly a week AFTER the speech for the head of the Army to demand that charges be filed? Spin it any way you want, no one said anything about filing charges UNTIL the military got involved, and suddenly others who were "offended" are crawling out of the woodwork. Sorry, but to me, something just isn't quite kosher here.

I'm trying to look at things with a non-judgmental, non-biased opinion, and with an open mind to various possibilities. Perhaps some of you should do the same and stop jumping to conclusions without really comprehending what you are reading.

If you comprehended what was written to you, all your current confusion (if it is not 'confusion', of course) will be clarified away, all rather succinctly and accurately, for your benefit.

Why is it that the head of the Army is the one behind this, and not other government agencies, such as the police, DSI, etc. I find that a bit strange.

I find it a bit strange that you fail to understand the precarious position non-Army persons find themselves in, trapped as they are by political positions they hold, which are so polarised, it renders them quite incapacitated with indecision. Or, basically what animatic said.

Spare a little pity please, on the poor public servant rudely asked to do his job, when doing his job might well mean more than merely losing it, should the fickle electorate swing to another, more preferred, slave master. Or back to an old one. As the case may be.

If the remarks were that offensive, why were charges not filed the next day by these other groups, and why did it take nearly a week AFTER the speech for the head of the Army to demand that charges be filed? Spin it any way you want, no one said anything about filing charges UNTIL the military got involved, and suddenly others who were "offended" are crawling out of the woodwork. Sorry, but to me, something just isn't quite kosher here.

Gosh, could it possibly be that they were waiting for the big boys to get into the fight, so that they wouldn't find themselves stranded, swinging punches at someone who might swing more than mere punches, should an upcoming election and or riot and or well-funded enemy place them in an uncomfortable position? Meanwhile, the big boys were urging them on...you know, to do their job or whatever. And when they bravely (or cowardly) resisted the urging, the big boys had to head down and do it themselves?

Golly gosh. Are you really sure something isn't kosher? Because something is not kosher here, and it's in your posting. In your refusing to look at the ridiculously OBVIOUS reason, determined as you are to find a non-kosher one.

[jdinasia]

hmmmm

I love it when people "in the know" make absolute claims like "there was no LM", when other people far more in the know show the likelihood of not only there having been a real LM issue, but also the likelihood of a conviction on it.

I have watched the videos in question and it certainly appears to me that the charges are valid, but that they will also stick. The others charged, may imho, get a pass except for those out on bail conditions that state "no incitement" ....

The courts will do what they are supposed to do, hopefully, and serve the law. They usually appear to do just that, though the leeway allowed in Thai law can sometimes leave people with questions like "why"?

[TheyCallmeScooter]

I just can't help but believe that if PTP won the next election, the men in green would be out out in force quick sticks. They cannot afford a PTP gov't. They would find some excuse such as defending this or that institution blah, blah, blah, but the bottom line is that they are defending their own interests, which has sod all to do with democracy.

And coming out and saying there will be no coup means squat. You start flicking their balls and they will be out faster than twice the speed of Jatuporn's mouth, and that is fast.

There is a remarkable contradiction or two in your post. Really very remarkable, if only because your post is far too short to hold such contradictions. It's rather impressive, that you managed to squeeze them in there.

You correctly recognise that people act in their own interests. Bravo for you. A yellow star and you get to use the grownup coloured chalk now.

So what is your point? And why are you bringing up democracy? Are you saying that if Thaksin is given a pardon, by virtue of an election win he can only buy with stolen money, that such an event would be...democratic?

And who would "flick their balls", exactly? They act in their own interests no? I'm quite certain you got that part right. But now you're implying you've changed your mind, and that someone "flicks their balls", bringing them out faster than the speed of idiocy.

I'm mighty confused. May I kindly request a clarification on those points?

[metisdead]

Off topic posts have been removed.

Another baiting/bickering by the same 2 members that has been removed. These same members have carried this baiting/bickering session from topic to topic and is becoming tiresome. Cease and desist from further baiting/bickering sessions and stick to the topic at hand.

Thanks

[FOODLOVER]

I just can't help but believe that if PTP won the next election, the men in green would be out out in force quick sticks. They cannot afford a PTP gov't. They would find some excuse such as defending this or that institution blah, blah, blah, but the bottom line is that they are defending their own interests, which has sod all to do with democracy.

And coming out and saying there will be no coup means squat. You start flicking their balls and they will be out faster than twice the speed of Jatuporn's mouth, and that is fast.

yes, i too would be out fast if you flicked my balls!

[ianbaggie]

I just can't help but believe that if PTP won the next election, the men in green would be out out in force quick sticks. They cannot afford a PTP gov't. They would find some excuse such as defending this or that institution blah, blah, blah, but the bottom line is that they are defending their own interests, which has sod all to do with democracy.

And coming out and saying there will be no coup means squat. You start flicking their balls and they will be out faster than twice the speed of Jatuporn's mouth, and that is fast.

Better the army in charge than the criminal Shinawatra back is the long and short of it - and before you say - elections in thailand can never be democratic when the result is paid for by a refugees stolen billions.

[Just1Voice]

elections in thailand can never be democratic when the result is paid for by a refugees stolen billions.

Do you honestly believe he is the ONLY politician in the history of Thailand to buy votes? If so, you are living in a dream world, and need to wake up and realize that vote buying, in a number of forms, has been a staple of every political party in Thailand, and was so long before Thaksin even came on the scene.

Am I defending him? Not in any way, as I think he's a piece of crap! But neither do I believe he's the only corrupt politician in Thailand, when the truth is, 99.9% of them are corrupted to the core and care only about what they can steal and cheat others out of. Thaksin's biggest downfall was that he refused to "share" and stepped on too many toes of the "Old Elite", who saw him as a threat to their feudal lord existence.

[animatic]

elections in thailand can never be democratic when the result is paid for by a refugees stolen billions.

Do you honestly believe he is the ONLY politician in the history of Thailand to buy votes? If so, you are living in a dream world, and need to wake up and realize that vote buying, in a number of forms, has been a staple of every political party in Thailand, and was so long before Thaksin even came on the scene.

Am I defending him? Not in any way, as I think he's a piece of crap! But neither do I believe he's the only corrupt politician in Thailand, when the truth is, 99.9% of them are corrupted to the core and care only about what they can steal and cheat others out of. Thaksin's biggest downfall was that he refused to "share" and stepped on too many toes of the "Old Elite", who saw him as a threat to their feudal lord existence.

He's also not the first politician to be a super-rich, amoral, megalomaniac, control-freak, proto-despot filled with hubris, revenge fantasies and decayed judgment abilities when under pressure. Certainly there have been many over the centuries.

But why would we want to encourage

ANY OF THEM to become our national leaders?

Edited April 22, 2011 by animatic

[GarryP]

I just can't help but believe that if PTP won the next election, the men in green would be out out in force quick sticks. They cannot afford a PTP gov't. They would find some excuse such as defending this or that institution blah, blah, blah, but the bottom line is that they are defending their own interests, which has sod all to do with democracy.

And coming out and saying there will be no coup means squat. You start flicking their balls and they will be out faster than twice the speed of Jatuporn's mouth, and that is fast.

Better the army in charge than the criminal Shinawatra back is the long and short of it - and before you say - elections in thailand can never be democratic when the result is paid for by a refugees stolen billions.

Sorry, I can't agree with that sentiment. The bigwigs in the army for the most part are just as corrupt. You may single out Taksin as paying for vote buying, but they nearly all do it no matter which political party. He just has deeper pockets.

I think he would be wasting his time though, as if he manages to get the PTP back in, they won't be there long because there will be a coup. The army would not stand for a PTP government. They would concoct some excuse for it, but the bottom line is to protect their own varied interests.

The way things are going now with pre-emptive actions and sabre rattling, it looks like the PTP don't have a look in anyway, which may not be a bad thing.

[scorecard]

elections in thailand can never be democratic when the result is paid for by a refugees stolen billions.

Do you honestly believe he is the ONLY politician in the history of Thailand to buy votes? If so, you are living in a dream world, and need to wake up and realize that vote buying, in a number of forms, has been a staple of every political party in Thailand, and was so long before Thaksin even came on the scene.

Am I defending him? Not in any way, as I think he's a piece of crap! But neither do I believe he's the only corrupt politician in Thailand, when the truth is, 99.9% of them are corrupted to the core and care only about what they can steal and cheat others out of. Thaksin's biggest downfall was that he refused to "share" and stepped on too many toes of the "Old Elite", who saw him as a threat to their feudal lord existence.

I agree with much of what you say.

Further, many would suggest the paymaster took it to another level of openness. One quick example: he goes to Burma, comes back and tells the appropriate authorities to lend Burma billions of Baht from the commonwealth of all Thais, at low interest rates. Then it's quickly revealed that Burma has signed a contract with the paymasters companies to buy vast amounts of expensive equipment. Totally open scenario for all to see, no attempt whatever to keep it under wraps.

Adding to the scaliness factor, not one person surrounding him had the guts to say anything, and they all knew well that what he was doing was highly immoral.

Another point (not intended to take anything away from the post above from just1voice). Every politician in the world who gets involved in corruption knows well that what he/she is doing is highly illegal and highly immoral.

They all know very well that the day could come when the axe falls, and they well that it could fall on them, and they simply cannot say that it's unfair.

Edited April 22, 2011 by scorecard

[metisdead]

Posters are reminded to stay on topic and to refrain from comments concerning the character of other posters. One post has been removed.

[jayboy]

hmmmm

I love it when people "in the know" make absolute claims like "there was no LM", when other people far more in the know show the likelihood of not only there having been a real LM issue, but also the likelihood of a conviction on it.

I have watched the videos in question and it certainly appears to me that the charges are valid, but that they will also stick. The others charged, may imho, get a pass except for those out on bail conditions that state "no incitement" ....

The courts will do what they are supposed to do, hopefully, and serve the law. They usually appear to do just that, though the leeway allowed in Thai law can sometimes leave people with questions like "why"?

You debunk people who are "in the know" but in doing so simply come up with the position that you are "in the know".Forgive me if I'm not impressed.

Actually I have discussed with a Thai lawyer friend, a strong Democrat as it happens.He broadly supports my view that there was no LM but to be fair he does think Jatuporn exercised poor judgement.

As to the Thai courts, their record speaks for itself.Let's just say justice is not blind here.

[jdinasia]

I used the words "appears" in my statement of what I think .. not an absolute such as "there is no" ... I debunk people making claims of absolutes, I mention that other people that actually ARE in the know that have made statements that counter a poster's claim (and have done so publicly in the press) and finally I give my opinion. I do like it when people add in "I talked to ..." to try and claim expert status in a discussion

People's opinions on court rulings in Thailand? ...... opinions. It is fairly easy to go back to 2001 and see where the idea of "double standards" comes from

[jayboy]

I used the words "appears" in my statement of what I think .. not an absolute such as "there is no" ... I debunk people making claims of absolutes, I mention that other people that actually ARE in the know that have made statements that counter a poster's claim (and have done so publicly in the press) and finally I give my opinion. I do like it when people add in "I talked to ..." to try and claim expert status in a discussion

People's opinions on court rulings in Thailand? ...... opinions. It is fairly easy to go back to 2001 and see where the idea of "double standards" comes from

I honestly have nothing to add to you "in the know" comments (since I don't understand them).Incidentally my lawyer friend didn't pretend to be an expert on LM, just gave his layman opinion.

I have been monitoring the Thai courts closely since the early 1980's.There is nothing new about the judicialisation of politics though it has intensified in recent years.I entirely accept your point about 2001 double standards, but it didn't begin then.The hardcore "direction" of the courts - given the wrong results at general elections - began after Thaksin's time however.

[yoshiwara]

Why is it that the head of the Army is the one behind this, and not other government agencies, such as the police, DSI, etc. I find that a bit strange.

I find it a bit strange that you fail to understand the precarious position non-Army persons find themselves in, trapped as they are by political positions they hold, which are so polarised, it renders them quite incapacitated with indecision. Or, basically what animatic said.

Spare a little pity please, on the poor public servant rudely asked to do his job, when doing his job might well mean more than merely losing it, should the fickle electorate swing to another, more preferred, slave master. Or back to an old one. As the case may be.

Actually the issue is not rocket science in its difficulty to understand. Last year the reds led by the likes of Arisman and Jatuporn attempted to seize control of the streets to push Thaksin's agenda. They were defeated. Booted off. Now that the election (you know the one they said they wanted) sails into view and the reality of a possible defeat faces them they are pushing the option of getting back on the streets and take up where they left off. The coup number fits the bill. Jatuporn is leading the push. On the other side the establishment are now well aware from 2010 and 2009 what Thaksin's real game is and the LM affair is the establishment's way of telling Jatuporn (Thaksin) 'Don't even think about it'. All a part of the positioning ahead of the election being declared. If the reds thought they were home and dry in the election you would think they would try harder to be good boys. However, like his master Thaksin Jatuporn appears hard-wired to only want a victory that is forced.

Edited April 22, 2011 by yoshiwara

[TheyCallmeScooter]

Why is it that the head of the Army is the one behind this, and not other government agencies, such as the police, DSI, etc. I find that a bit strange.

I find it a bit strange that you fail to understand the precarious position non-Army persons find themselves in, trapped as they are by political positions they hold, which are so polarised, it renders them quite incapacitated with indecision. Or, basically what animatic said.

Spare a little pity please, on the poor public servant rudely asked to do his job, when doing his job might well mean more than merely losing it, should the fickle electorate swing to another, more preferred, slave master. Or back to an old one. As the case may be.

Actually the issue is not rocket science in its difficulty to understand. Last year the reds led by the likes of Arisman and Jatuporn attempted to seize control of the streets to push Thaksin's agenda. They were defeated. Booted off. Now that the election (you know the one they said they wanted) sails into view and the reality of a possible defeat faces them they are pushing the option of getting back on the streets and take up where they left off. The coup number fits the bill. Jatuporn is leading the push. On the other side the establishment are now well aware from 2010 and 2009 what Thaksin's real game is and the LM affair is the establishment's way of telling Jatuporn (Thaksin) 'Don't even think about it'. All a part of the positioning ahead of the election being declared. If the reds thought they were home and dry in the election you would think they would try harder to be good boys. However, like his master Thaksin Jatuporn appears hard-wired to only want a victory that is forced.

Yes I understand all of this, I'm not blind lol. But my response above was explaining to the strangely confused gentleman some simple logic which clearly illuminates for him, his persistent wondering about the very predictable nature of low-level public servants tasked with taking their peashooters into a gunfight, and not being in love with the idea.

[gregb]

I have been monitoring the Thai courts closely since the early 1980's.There is nothing new about the judicialisation of politics though it has intensified in recent years.I entirely accept your point about 2001 double standards, but it didn't begin then.The hardcore "direction" of the courts - given the wrong results at general elections - began after Thaksin's time however.

See...this is where you just lose all credibility. "The 'hardcore' direction?" What does that mean?

Did you ever stop to consider that the whole reason the coup was necessary was BECAUSE the courts would not do their duty as Thaksin attempted to usurp and destroy the democratic institutions of the country? If you don't like the backlash of the Thai court system today, you should have stepped up to demand it not be wound up so far in the other direction way back in 2001.

The coup is a direct result of Thaksin abusing the court system for his own person gain. When you leave people no legal means to address the criminal actions of a leader, you have to accept that extra legal means become necessary. The "hardcore" bias, as you call it, was alive and well because of Thaksin, not in reaction to him.

[metisdead]

An off topic post has been remove.

Discussion of "Jatuporn And Other Red-Shirt Leaders Blow The Whistle On Coup" would be on topic to this thread while discussing the recent Nigerian voting scandal would be another topic altogether.

[PhoenixRising]

As to the Thai courts, their record speaks for itself.Let's just say justice is not blind here.

Justice is not blind anywhere. It's just an ideal that people should follow.

[Just1Voice]

After the coup Gen. Sonthi, in an interview with the Western press stated: "We had to have a coup because would couldn't find any way to democratically remove him" (Thaksin)

Meanwhile, Sondhi, the PAD leader, during a speech at an American University, claimed the coup was necessary because the "Bangkok elite were losing their power and wanted it back", a position he also embraced.

Part of me says you don't have a coup in a - supposedly - democratic country. Yet, another part of me can understand the "rationale" of Gen Sonthi.

The biggest problem I have with the coup is when they tore up the "People's Constitution", replacing it with one that was approved by the military, absolving themselves from any liability. People say it was voted on and passed by over 60% of the population, but one small fact they forget to mention is that they were pretty much told by the coup makers: "Vote for this or stay under military rule and martial law". They chose the lesser of two evils.

[animatic]

The peoples constitution was so flawed it let the likes of Thaksin abuse it to run rough shod across the nation for his own profits. And his political machine bought with cash prevented any simple democratic means to remove his malevolent presence from the body politic. It was far from only the Bangkok Elite at odds with Thaksins machinations and plans for domination.

Basically this also bubbles down to a range war between two elites,

the Thaksin Faction and the older school faction,

with Army and Police taking sides against each other as they always do.

The little people, the average Somchai is just a

bargaining chip/vote tally manipulation tool

and cannon fodder for these elites.

Pretty disgusting to observe.

[whybother]

After the coup Gen. Sonthi, in an interview with the Western press stated: "We had to have a coup because would couldn't find any way to democratically remove him" (Thaksin)

Meanwhile, Sondhi, the PAD leader, during a speech at an American University, claimed the coup was necessary because the "Bangkok elite were losing their power and wanted it back", a position he also embraced.

Part of me says you don't have a coup in a - supposedly - democratic country. Yet, another part of me can understand the "rationale" of Gen Sonthi.

The biggest problem I have with the coup is when they tore up the "People's Constitution", replacing it with one that was approved by the military, absolving themselves from any liability. People say it was voted on and passed by over 60% of the population, but one small fact they forget to mention is that they were pretty much told by the coup makers: "Vote for this or stay under military rule and martial law". They chose the lesser of two evils.

Can you imagine the coup makers saying "We having a coup to get rid of a corrupt politician. That's done. New elections are planned. Now we'll surrender and spend 20 years in jail"??

Ofcourse they're going to absolve themselves of liability. Those in power make the rules. Thaksin tried it and changed a lot of rules to suit himself, but he didn't have quite enough power.

Now, the rules are made and changed in parliament.

[slapout]

Numbers bandied around on TV seem to indicate that 90+% of the wealth in Thailand is controlled by a relatively small percentage of the population, 10 to 15% seem to be an accepted number. If these figures are in a realm of acceptability what would be the number of politicians from this group and or those politicians who owe their position/livelihood to these groups? My guess would be, the same numbers fit both scenarios.

The Thai people deserve what government they have with all its warts and halos. It does not take a educated individual to realize he is being sh.t on and to take action to bring positive changes. When the old guard can pass the baton to their children, grandchildren, extended family, etc, without question, and retain/propose impunity, it reflects on the people not the minority who get away with it.

[whybother]

Numbers bandied around on TV seem to indicate that 90+% of the wealth in Thailand is controlled by a relatively small percentage of the population, 10 to 15% seem to be an accepted number. If these figures are in a realm of acceptability what would be the number of politicians from this group and or those politicians who owe their position/livelihood to these groups? My guess would be, the same numbers fit both scenarios.

The Thai people deserve what government they have with all its warts and halos. It does not take a educated individual to realize he is being sh.t on and to take action to bring positive changes. When the old guard can pass the baton to their children, grandchildren, extended family, etc, without question, and retain/propose impunity, it reflects on the people not the minority who get away with it.

I don't accept your numbers, but besides that, I would expect that most politicians (or their families) would be part of the small percentage of people that control the large percentage of wealth. That is how and why they become involved in politics.

[jdinasia]

After the coup Gen. Sonthi, in an interview with the Western press stated: "We had to have a coup because would couldn't find any way to democratically remove him" (Thaksin)

Meanwhile, Sondhi, the PAD leader, during a speech at an American University, claimed the coup was necessary because the "Bangkok elite were losing their power and wanted it back", a position he also embraced.

Part of me says you don't have a coup in a - supposedly - democratic country. Yet, another part of me can understand the "rationale" of Gen Sonthi.

The biggest problem I have with the coup is when they tore up the "People's Constitution", replacing it with one that was approved by the military, absolving themselves from any liability. People say it was voted on and passed by over 60% of the population, but one small fact they forget to mention is that they were pretty much told by the coup makers: "Vote for this or stay under military rule and martial law". They chose the lesser of two evils.

Can you provide any source material for your "quotes" ?Particularly the 2 directly attributed to individuals?

The 1997 constitution had failed. The checks and balances established in it had been degraded. The new constitution, although easily argued that it was less democratic in how it came about, has a stronger democratic guiding principle of checks and balances.

@slapout -- the CIA world factbook places the wealth distribution of Thailand as being very close to the wealth distribution of the USA and many other places.

[animatic]

Numbers bandied around on TV seem to indicate that 90+% of the wealth in Thailand is controlled by a relatively small percentage of the population, 10 to 15% seem to be an accepted number. If these figures are in a realm of acceptability what would be the number of politicians from this group and or those politicians who owe their position/livelihood to these groups? My guess would be, the same numbers fit both scenarios.

The Thai people deserve what government they have with all its warts and halos. It does not take a educated individual to realize he is being sh.t on and to take action to bring positive changes. When the old guard can pass the baton to their children, grandchildren, extended family, etc, without question, and retain/propose impunity, it reflects on the people not the minority who get away with it.

Those kind of numbers are duplicated pretty much world wide including in communist countries. There is ALWAYS an elite that has a large percentage of the national cash, or investments. Of course if this is considered investments that create jobs, then IMO this changes the dynamic significantly.

If they were just hoarding cash and letting others starve to death it would be different than investing in infrastructure that creates jobs for many. It might not be glamourous to pour cement, but it's better than no job because no one is building. Should minimum wages be raised yes and significantly.

What differentiates countries is how they deal with the poorest of the poor, and how fast their middle classes are growing and educating their children to advance.

Of course all of this ALSO takes a tax base to finance it,

and businesses make jobs, so workers feed families,

workers also pay taxes at most levels, especially the better paid ones,

but more so companies pay taxes also.

Investment profits usually pay taxes also.

It may be fashionable in some circles to scream 'Eat the rich!', but who will replace their necessary functions in society?

Edited April 23, 2011 by animatic