There's just one problem with the notion that the rich 'get away' with reducing their taxes by donating to charity - you have to actually give the money away before you can use it as a deduction and you always 'save' less than you give away.

At one time, the majority of Americans thought slavery was just fine.  Should those who had a problem with slavey just shut the hell up and moved to say Canada?

I do hope that was sarcastic. If not, I encourage you to read up on the underground railroad.

It wasn't sarcastic and I encourage you to get a clue.  1) It was the Underground railroad because they were in opposition of the majority and had to operate underground.  2) Those opposed to slavery weren't moving themselves to Canada, they were helping the slaves get there.

I assume the slaves also had a problem with slavery. Correct me if I'm wrong here.

You assume correctly.  However, the individual slaves did not have a vote in the matter on the political front.  Also, it was not exactly easy to simply walk off the plantation and move yourself and family north into Canada on thier own.

The fundamental point remains the same. They had a problem with slavery. They moved to another country.

No, they did not simply move to another country.  There was a network of a minority of people with political power opposed to slavery who moved the slaves against the will of the majority. 

You seem to be missing something.  The point was that a majority of the people with political power had no problem with slavery.  Is it valid for this majority to simply tell those opposed to move to another country if they do not like slavery?  Now, there is very likely no way they would say this to a slave, who would in all likelihood be more than willing to take them up on the offer.  The risks would be too great to go it alone however many slaves may have tried. 

The answer to the question posed in the orignal post is, no it is not valid to tell people to simply move to another country if they do not like the policies.  In fact, moving because they do not like the policies is not even a good position for the minority to take.  The country would stagnate ideologically and we would all be much worse off.

Exactly.

Just because the majority is okay with something doesn't mean it's right.

The tax burden of the US is increasingly being put on the shoulders of a small minority of the population who, arguably, gets less and less in return for it.  This is not a good thing in the long-run because we are already seeing the effects in the form of out-sourcing and the lost of American corporations overseas.

People on the left have these strong beliefs on a wide array of issues but often don't recognize the consequences of those beliefs when they are executed on by the federal government.  Raise minimum wage? We get automated check-out ilnes and illegal immigrants doing a lot of work that used to be done by Americans.  Increasing taxation on businesses? They mover overseas outright or start to outsource more and more.

Democrats are great at complaining about economic problems but they are usually oblivious to the causes of them.

Check out lanes are awesome.

I think a bigger part of work being done by illegal immigrants is because some americans are too 'proud' for some work and why work when they can get benefits instead?  That's a smaller point in this particular topic though.

Outsourcing coding work is a shame. a bigger % of outsourced coding work I've seen is pretty horrible relative to work done by americans.

The automated checkout lines are nice.  I had one spit out 4 twenties instead of 4 dollars in change at a local Walmart.  I am not sure how long it was going on, but I immediately told the guy behind me it was not giving out the correct change and called over a floor manager.  She seemed puzzled by my honesty. 

A human cashier could have pocketed cash dirrectly from the drawer, but it would have been easier to catch them.  This machine could have been spitting out the wrong bills all night long.  I suspect it was hacked or there was some human error since the bills were in the correct tray.  Either way, raising minimum wage cost Walmart *some* cash and cost a potential employee a job, or atleast more hours.

Ok, I only tenuouosly connected this to the thread, but I have been sitting on this story for a long time.  

Honestly, I would have rather dealt with a human cashier, but there were none working that early in the morning.... some however can not count back change, or make correct change when I hand them an extract few cents to round up the amount without punching it in.

Oh, there was a 'published rate' of 70% on ordinary income for sure, but you know damn well nary a soul came anywhere close to paying that.  Those potentially subject to such a rate paid themselves in dividends (a la John Edwards) or found other ways to be sure they didn't have 'income' subject to that rate by engaging in all sorts of tax-shelter shenanigans & shell games.  Only fools let that much of their money get taken, and there were damn few fools with that kind of money.

There is a point at which you're throwing good money after bad & it's no longer worth it.  I'm sure that point varies from person to person, and creativity in avoiding taxes will never go away entirely (until & unless all income from all sources is treated the same & taxed at a low rate) but you can be damn sure there's a helluva lot less of it @ a 28% tax rate that @ a 70% tax rate.

To be honest, I certainly don't care how much things cost if my health is at stake.

And I am all for a public health care system (but totally against a welfare system; I see those two as different animals).

Here in Ireland we have essentially the following system:

1. We pay taxes.

2. We pay social security.

3. Some tax-subsidised social-security-financed government agency builds hospitals and provides financial coverage for essentially all needed medical products. However, making use of these offers requires waiting lists and sitting in waiting rooms for hours at a time.

4. Private companies, churches etc. also build hospitals and offer services, some of which are also paid for by the above agency.

5. Private companies sell health insurance. This insurance ADDS to the agency-supplied services, allows one to stay in private rooms or private hospitals, skip waiting lists and get appointments that don't require sitting in the waiting room for hours.

6. Depending on the contract those insurance companies also pay for a percentage (typically 50-70%) of dental costs. Otherwise those costs are paid by the patients (unless one makes use of public dental clinics and waits for hours on arrival).

7. I have (and pay for) 100% coverage in private rooms in public and private hospitals (with few exceptions) and 70% coverage of dental costs. This is typical if you are in a company plan or privately arranged for a similar plan.

This system seems to me a good combination of a public health care system and a private system. Everyone can afford everything needed, but it's more luxurious for those who are willing to pay more.