Discussion:
I'll believe it when I see it, but...
(too old to reply)
Jim Alder
2004-08-02 14:35:30 UTC
Permalink
REPUBLICANS PLAN PUSH FOR ELIMINATION OF IRS

A domestic centerpiece of the Bush/GOP agenda for a second Bush term is
getting rid of the Internal Revenue Service, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.

The Speaker of the House will push for replacing the nation's current tax
system with a national sales tax or a value added tax, Hill sources tell
DRUDGE.

"People ask me if I’m really calling for the elimination of the IRS, and I
say I think that’s a great thing to do for future generations of
Americans," Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert explains in his new book,
to be released on Wednesday.

"Pushing reform legislation will be difficult. Change of any sort seldom
comes easy. But these changes are critical to our economic vitality and our
economic security abroad," Hastert declares in SPEAKER: LESSONS FROM FORTY
YEARS IN COACHING AND POLITICS.

"“If you own property, stock, or, say, one hundred acres of farmland and
tax time is approaching, you don’t want to make a mistake, so you’re almost
obliged to go to a certified public accountant, tax preparer, or tax
attorney to help you file a correct return. That costs a lot of money. Now
multiply the amount you have to pay by the total number of people who are
in the same boat. You can’t. No one can because precise numbers don’t
exist. But we can stipulate that we’re talking about a huge amount. Now
consider that a flat tax, national sales tax, or VAT would not only
eliminate the need to do this, it could also eliminate the Internal Revenue
Service (IRS) itself and make the process of paying taxes much easier."

"By adopting a VAT, sales tax, or some other alternative, we could begin to
change productivity. If you can do that, you can change gross national
product and start growing the economy. You could double the economy over
the next fifteen years. All of a sudden, the problem of what future
generations owe in Social Security and Medicare won’t be so daunting
anymore. The answer is to grow the economy, and the key to doing that is
making sure we have a tax system that attracts capital and builds
incentives to keep it here instead of forcing it out to other nations."
--
"I do not believe John Kerry is fit to be Commander-in-Chief of the armed
forces of the United States. This is not a political issue. It is a matter
of his judgment, truthfulness, reliability, loyalty and trust -- all
absolute tenets of command. His biography, 'Tour of Duty,' by Douglas
Brinkley, is replete with gross exaggerations, distortions of fact,
contradictions and slanderous lies. His contempt for the military and
authority is evident by even a most casual review of this biography."Rear
Admiral Roy Hoffman, USN (retired)
Sam Funn
2004-08-02 15:04:07 UTC
Permalink
Go for it. We always knew the right was nuts. This kind of
anti-establishment BS will prove it.
Post by Jim Alder
REPUBLICANS PLAN PUSH FOR ELIMINATION OF IRS
A domestic centerpiece of the Bush/GOP agenda for a second Bush term is
getting rid of the Internal Revenue Service, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.
The Speaker of the House will push for replacing the nation's current tax
system with a national sales tax or a value added tax, Hill sources tell
DRUDGE.
"People ask me if I'm really calling for the elimination of the IRS, and I
say I think that's a great thing to do for future generations of
Americans," Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert explains in his new book,
to be released on Wednesday.
"Pushing reform legislation will be difficult. Change of any sort seldom
comes easy. But these changes are critical to our economic vitality and our
economic security abroad," Hastert declares in SPEAKER: LESSONS FROM FORTY
YEARS IN COACHING AND POLITICS.
""If you own property, stock, or, say, one hundred acres of farmland and
tax time is approaching, you don't want to make a mistake, so you're
almost
Post by Jim Alder
obliged to go to a certified public accountant, tax preparer, or tax
attorney to help you file a correct return. That costs a lot of money. Now
multiply the amount you have to pay by the total number of people who are
in the same boat. You can't. No one can because precise numbers don't
exist. But we can stipulate that we're talking about a huge amount. Now
consider that a flat tax, national sales tax, or VAT would not only
eliminate the need to do this, it could also eliminate the Internal Revenue
Service (IRS) itself and make the process of paying taxes much easier."
"By adopting a VAT, sales tax, or some other alternative, we could begin to
change productivity. If you can do that, you can change gross national
product and start growing the economy. You could double the economy over
the next fifteen years. All of a sudden, the problem of what future
generations owe in Social Security and Medicare won't be so daunting
anymore. The answer is to grow the economy, and the key to doing that is
making sure we have a tax system that attracts capital and builds
incentives to keep it here instead of forcing it out to other nations."
--
"I do not believe John Kerry is fit to be Commander-in-Chief of the armed
forces of the United States. This is not a political issue. It is a matter
of his judgment, truthfulness, reliability, loyalty and trust -- all
absolute tenets of command. His biography, 'Tour of Duty,' by Douglas
Brinkley, is replete with gross exaggerations, distortions of fact,
contradictions and slanderous lies. His contempt for the military and
authority is evident by even a most casual review of this biography."Rear
Admiral Roy Hoffman, USN (retired)
Jim Alder
2004-08-02 15:28:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sam Funn
Go for it. We always knew the right was nuts. This kind of
anti-establishment BS will prove it.
"Democrats introduced flat tax legislation long before Dick Armey
proposed his plan in 1994. Within months of economists Robert Hall and
Alvin Rabushka unveiling the original flat tax in 1981, Senator Dennis
DeConcini of Arizona and Representative Leon Panetta of California
introduced versions in Congress."
http://www.cato.org/dailys/07-30-04.html
Post by Sam Funn
Post by Jim Alder
REPUBLICANS PLAN PUSH FOR ELIMINATION OF IRS
A domestic centerpiece of the Bush/GOP agenda for a second Bush term
is getting rid of the Internal Revenue Service, the DRUDGE REPORT has
learned.
Post by Jim Alder
The Speaker of the House will push for replacing the nation's current
tax system with a national sales tax or a value added tax, Hill
sources tell DRUDGE.
"People ask me if I'm really calling for the elimination of the IRS,
and I say I think that's a great thing to do for future generations of
Americans," Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert explains in his new
book, to be released on Wednesday.
"Pushing reform legislation will be difficult. Change of any sort
seldom comes easy. But these changes are critical to our economic
vitality and
our
Post by Jim Alder
economic security abroad," Hastert declares in SPEAKER: LESSONS FROM
FORTY YEARS IN COACHING AND POLITICS.
""If you own property, stock, or, say, one hundred acres of farmland
and tax time is approaching, you don't want to make a mistake, so
you're
almost
Post by Jim Alder
obliged to go to a certified public accountant, tax preparer, or tax
attorney to help you file a correct return. That costs a lot of money.
Now multiply the amount you have to pay by the total number of people
who are in the same boat. You can't. No one can because precise
numbers don't exist. But we can stipulate that we're talking about a
huge amount. Now consider that a flat tax, national sales tax, or VAT
would not only eliminate the need to do this, it could also eliminate
the Internal
Revenue
Post by Jim Alder
Service (IRS) itself and make the process of paying taxes much easier."
"By adopting a VAT, sales tax, or some other alternative, we could
begin
to
Post by Jim Alder
change productivity. If you can do that, you can change gross national
product and start growing the economy. You could double the economy
over the next fifteen years. All of a sudden, the problem of what
future generations owe in Social Security and Medicare won't be so
daunting anymore. The answer is to grow the economy, and the key to
doing that is making sure we have a tax system that attracts capital
and builds incentives to keep it here instead of forcing it out to
other nations."
--
"I do not believe John Kerry is fit to be Commander-in-Chief of the
armed forces of the United States. This is not a political issue. It
is a matter of his judgment, truthfulness, reliability, loyalty and
trust -- all absolute tenets of command. His biography, 'Tour of
Duty,' by Douglas Brinkley, is replete with gross exaggerations,
distortions of fact, contradictions and slanderous lies. His contempt
for the military and authority is evident by even a most casual review
of this biography."Rear Admiral Roy Hoffman, USN (retired)
--
"I do not believe John Kerry is fit to be Commander-in-Chief of the armed
forces of the United States. This is not a political issue. It is a matter
of his judgment, truthfulness, reliability, loyalty and trust -- all
absolute tenets of command. His biography, 'Tour of Duty,' by Douglas
Brinkley, is replete with gross exaggerations, distortions of fact,
contradictions and slanderous lies. His contempt for the military and
authority is evident by even a most casual review of this biography."Rear
Admiral Roy Hoffman, USN (retired)
Sam Funn
2004-08-02 15:33:29 UTC
Permalink
Flat tax would not eliminate the IRS
Post by Jim Alder
Post by Sam Funn
Go for it. We always knew the right was nuts. This kind of
anti-establishment BS will prove it.
"Democrats introduced flat tax legislation long before Dick Armey
proposed his plan in 1994. Within months of economists Robert Hall and
Alvin Rabushka unveiling the original flat tax in 1981, Senator Dennis
DeConcini of Arizona and Representative Leon Panetta of California
introduced versions in Congress."
http://www.cato.org/dailys/07-30-04.html
Post by Sam Funn
Post by Jim Alder
REPUBLICANS PLAN PUSH FOR ELIMINATION OF IRS
A domestic centerpiece of the Bush/GOP agenda for a second Bush term
is getting rid of the Internal Revenue Service, the DRUDGE REPORT has
learned.
Post by Jim Alder
The Speaker of the House will push for replacing the nation's current
tax system with a national sales tax or a value added tax, Hill
sources tell DRUDGE.
"People ask me if I'm really calling for the elimination of the IRS,
and I say I think that's a great thing to do for future generations of
Americans," Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert explains in his new
book, to be released on Wednesday.
"Pushing reform legislation will be difficult. Change of any sort
seldom comes easy. But these changes are critical to our economic
vitality and
our
Post by Jim Alder
economic security abroad," Hastert declares in SPEAKER: LESSONS FROM
FORTY YEARS IN COACHING AND POLITICS.
""If you own property, stock, or, say, one hundred acres of farmland
and tax time is approaching, you don't want to make a mistake, so
you're
almost
Post by Jim Alder
obliged to go to a certified public accountant, tax preparer, or tax
attorney to help you file a correct return. That costs a lot of money.
Now multiply the amount you have to pay by the total number of people
who are in the same boat. You can't. No one can because precise
numbers don't exist. But we can stipulate that we're talking about a
huge amount. Now consider that a flat tax, national sales tax, or VAT
would not only eliminate the need to do this, it could also eliminate
the Internal
Revenue
Post by Jim Alder
Service (IRS) itself and make the process of paying taxes much easier."
"By adopting a VAT, sales tax, or some other alternative, we could
begin
to
Post by Jim Alder
change productivity. If you can do that, you can change gross national
product and start growing the economy. You could double the economy
over the next fifteen years. All of a sudden, the problem of what
future generations owe in Social Security and Medicare won't be so
daunting anymore. The answer is to grow the economy, and the key to
doing that is making sure we have a tax system that attracts capital
and builds incentives to keep it here instead of forcing it out to
other nations."
--
"I do not believe John Kerry is fit to be Commander-in-Chief of the
armed forces of the United States. This is not a political issue. It
is a matter of his judgment, truthfulness, reliability, loyalty and
trust -- all absolute tenets of command. His biography, 'Tour of
Duty,' by Douglas Brinkley, is replete with gross exaggerations,
distortions of fact, contradictions and slanderous lies. His contempt
for the military and authority is evident by even a most casual review
of this biography."Rear Admiral Roy Hoffman, USN (retired)
--
"I do not believe John Kerry is fit to be Commander-in-Chief of the armed
forces of the United States. This is not a political issue. It is a matter
of his judgment, truthfulness, reliability, loyalty and trust -- all
absolute tenets of command. His biography, 'Tour of Duty,' by Douglas
Brinkley, is replete with gross exaggerations, distortions of fact,
contradictions and slanderous lies. His contempt for the military and
authority is evident by even a most casual review of this biography."Rear
Admiral Roy Hoffman, USN (retired)
Jim Alder
2004-08-02 16:13:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sam Funn
Flat tax would not eliminate the IRS
Uh huh. When it was the Republican's idea it was "nuts" but now that it
was also the Democrats' idea, it just won't do what they claim? True, a
Flat Tax would not 'eliminate' the IRS. It would just change it to a
minimum number of book keepers and paper pushers,. which is what it should
be, not the terrifying organization of societal manipulators presently
running it.
Post by Sam Funn
Post by Jim Alder
Post by Sam Funn
Go for it. We always knew the right was nuts. This kind of
anti-establishment BS will prove it.
"Democrats introduced flat tax legislation long before Dick Armey
proposed his plan in 1994. Within months of economists Robert Hall and
Alvin Rabushka unveiling the original flat tax in 1981, Senator Dennis
DeConcini of Arizona and Representative Leon Panetta of California
introduced versions in Congress."
http://www.cato.org/dailys/07-30-04.html
Post by Sam Funn
Post by Jim Alder
REPUBLICANS PLAN PUSH FOR ELIMINATION OF IRS
A domestic centerpiece of the Bush/GOP agenda for a second Bush
term is getting rid of the Internal Revenue Service, the DRUDGE
REPORT has learned.
--
"I do not believe John Kerry is fit to be Commander-in-Chief of the armed
forces of the United States. This is not a political issue. It is a matter
of his judgment, truthfulness, reliability, loyalty and trust -- all
absolute tenets of command. His biography, 'Tour of Duty,' by Douglas
Brinkley, is replete with gross exaggerations, distortions of fact,
contradictions and slanderous lies. His contempt for the military and
authority is evident by even a most casual review of this biography."Rear
Admiral Roy Hoffman, USN (retired)
Sam Funn
2004-08-02 16:32:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim Alder
Post by Sam Funn
Flat tax would not eliminate the IRS
Uh huh. When it was the Republican's idea it was "nuts" but now that it
was also the Democrats' idea, it just won't do what they claim?
WTF? You're now changing the argument from eliminating the IRS (you're
original hair brained premise) to going to a flat tax and reducing it. You
can't change the premise of an argument and then accuse me of flip flopping.
You seem to have a really fucked up mind.

Seek help.

True, a
Post by Jim Alder
Flat Tax would not 'eliminate' the IRS. It would just change it to a
minimum number of book keepers and paper pushers,. which is what it should
be, not the terrifying organization of societal manipulators presently
running it.
Post by Sam Funn
Post by Jim Alder
Post by Sam Funn
Go for it. We always knew the right was nuts. This kind of
anti-establishment BS will prove it.
"Democrats introduced flat tax legislation long before Dick Armey
proposed his plan in 1994. Within months of economists Robert Hall and
Alvin Rabushka unveiling the original flat tax in 1981, Senator Dennis
DeConcini of Arizona and Representative Leon Panetta of California
introduced versions in Congress."
http://www.cato.org/dailys/07-30-04.html
Post by Sam Funn
Post by Jim Alder
REPUBLICANS PLAN PUSH FOR ELIMINATION OF IRS
A domestic centerpiece of the Bush/GOP agenda for a second Bush
term is getting rid of the Internal Revenue Service, the DRUDGE
REPORT has learned.
--
"I do not believe John Kerry is fit to be Commander-in-Chief of the armed
forces of the United States. This is not a political issue. It is a matter
of his judgment, truthfulness, reliability, loyalty and trust -- all
absolute tenets of command. His biography, 'Tour of Duty,' by Douglas
Brinkley, is replete with gross exaggerations, distortions of fact,
contradictions and slanderous lies. His contempt for the military and
authority is evident by even a most casual review of this biography."Rear
Admiral Roy Hoffman, USN (retired)
Jim Alder
2004-08-02 16:46:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sam Funn
Post by Jim Alder
Post by Sam Funn
Flat tax would not eliminate the IRS
Uh huh. When it was the Republican's idea it was
"nuts" but now that it was also the Democrats' idea,
it just won't do what they claim?
WTF? You're now changing the argument from eliminating the IRS (you're
original hair brained premise) to going to a flat tax and reducing it.
You can't change the premise of an argument and then accuse me of flip
flopping. You seem to have a really fucked up mind.
What are you? Blind?

Republicans; "Go for it. We always knew the right was nuts. This kind of
anti-establishment BS will prove it."

Democrats: "Flat tax would not eliminate the IRS."

Even a mind-numbed robot can see that your vituperative bile was
instantly neutered by the mention of the party of the left!
Post by Sam Funn
Seek help.
Typical neolibbie. Caught in the act, he goes right to the obscenities
and sandbox insults. I didn't present the premise as mine, as you can see
by the subject line. I just reported the news to the NEWSgroup, with my
typical skepticism. You vented your bile in typical knee-jerk manner.
Post by Sam Funn
Post by Jim Alder
True, a
Flat Tax would not 'eliminate' the IRS. It would just change it to a
minimum number of book keepers and paper pushers,. which is what it
should be, not the terrifying organization of societal manipulators
presently running it.
Post by Sam Funn
Post by Jim Alder
Post by Sam Funn
Go for it. We always knew the right was nuts. This kind of
anti-establishment BS will prove it.
"Democrats introduced flat tax legislation long before Dick Armey
proposed his plan in 1994. Within months of economists Robert Hall
and Alvin Rabushka unveiling the original flat tax in 1981, Senator
Dennis DeConcini of Arizona and Representative Leon Panetta of
California introduced versions in Congress."
http://www.cato.org/dailys/07-30-04.html
Post by Sam Funn
Post by Jim Alder
REPUBLICANS PLAN PUSH FOR ELIMINATION OF IRS
A domestic centerpiece of the Bush/GOP agenda for a second Bush
term is getting rid of the Internal Revenue Service, the DRUDGE
REPORT has learned.
--
"I do not believe John Kerry is fit to be Commander-in-Chief of the armed
forces of the United States. This is not a political issue. It is a matter
of his judgment, truthfulness, reliability, loyalty and trust -- all
absolute tenets of command. His biography, 'Tour of Duty,' by Douglas
Brinkley, is replete with gross exaggerations, distortions of fact,
contradictions and slanderous lies. His contempt for the military and
authority is evident by even a most casual review of this biography."Rear
Admiral Roy Hoffman, USN (retired)
blazinglaser
2004-08-02 17:40:00 UTC
Permalink
Can't you guys play nice together?

Yes, a flat tax wouldn't eliminate the IRS but would change it so much
as to be unrecognizeable. In other words it would eliminate the IRS
'as we know it'.

But it's been shown over and over that the reason the tax code is so
complex and convoluted is to hide little favors congresspeople do for
their sponsors and constituents. There are literally (no pun
intended) dozens of books documenting these. Both parties participate
in this charade and neither party is going to give up this power,
leastwise the party in control of Congress.

So while flat tax schemes are brought out in campaigns, they're
promptly forgotten as soon as the election is over. Seems to me the
flat-tax idea is usually brought up by the brashest also-ran--Jerry
Brown, for instance, or Alan Keyes. A flat income tax is like the
abolition of the Electoral College--everyone talks about it but nobody
does anything about it.
Jim Alder
2004-08-02 18:50:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by blazinglaser
Can't you guys play nice together?
I can.
Post by blazinglaser
Yes, a flat tax wouldn't eliminate the IRS but would change it so much
as to be unrecognizeable. In other words it would eliminate the IRS
'as we know it'.
I'm all for it.
Post by blazinglaser
But it's been shown over and over that the reason the tax code is so
complex and convoluted is to hide little favors congresspeople do for
their sponsors and constituents. There are literally (no pun
intended) dozens of books documenting these. Both parties participate
in this charade and neither party is going to give up this power,
leastwise the party in control of Congress.
See my previous comment about "societal manipulation".
Post by blazinglaser
So while flat tax schemes are brought out in campaigns, they're
promptly forgotten as soon as the election is over. Seems to me the
flat-tax idea is usually brought up by the brashest also-ran--Jerry
Brown, for instance, or Alan Keyes. A flat income tax is like the
abolition of the Electoral College--everyone talks about it but nobody
does anything about it.
I can live with the electoral college. But now the flat taz is being
brought up by the Speaker of the House and maybe the incumbent party. It's
only a glimmer of hope, but that's something.
--
"I do not believe John Kerry is fit to be Commander-in-Chief of the armed
forces of the United States. This is not a political issue. It is a matter
of his judgment, truthfulness, reliability, loyalty and trust -- all
absolute tenets of command. His biography, 'Tour of Duty,' by Douglas
Brinkley, is replete with gross exaggerations, distortions of fact,
contradictions and slanderous lies. His contempt for the military and
authority is evident by even a most casual review of this biography."Rear
Admiral Roy Hoffman, USN (retired)
blazinglaser
2004-08-03 20:17:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim Alder
I can live with the electoral college. But now the flat taz is being
brought up by the Speaker of the House and maybe the incumbent party. It's
only a glimmer of hope, but that's something.
The electoral college gives disproportionate power to smaller states.
It serves no real purpose except as a control on democracy so it ought
to be abolished. (We do all believe in -democracy-, don't we? 8^) )

As for the flat tax, I have hardly ever heard a flat tax plan with
details. Jerry Brown's plan was pretty detailed--but a big feature of
it was that it would lower most people's income tax by instituting an
additional tax on accumulated wealth!

Reagan's tax plan of the early 80s began as a flat tax, in fact as I
remember that's where the term came from. By the time it was detailed
in an actual bill it was clear it was just another Republican plan to
shift the tax burden from progressive to regressive taxes. The top
marginal rates were lowered and tax shelters and other 'loopholes'
were eliminated to make up for this. Then the loopholes were gradually
put back in and the shortfall was made up by raising the FICA.

And I suspect this new plan is similar to that, a bait-and-switch to
subsitute a national sales tax for income tax, for instance. Wait and
see.
Jim Alder
2004-08-03 21:45:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by blazinglaser
Post by Jim Alder
I can live with the electoral college. But now the flat taz is being
brought up by the Speaker of the House and maybe the incumbent party.
It's only a glimmer of hope, but that's something.
The electoral college gives disproportionate power to smaller states.
It serves no real purpose except as a control on democracy so it ought
to be abolished. (We do all believe in -democracy-, don't we? 8^) )
No, not really. If you get more than a few hundred people together,
democracy is really impossible to work. That's why the US is a Republic.

As for the electoral college, it's not unfair to smaller states. The
idea of the US government was a government designed to govern the states,
not the people in them. Of course, that idea is a tad dated since the
federal government now wants to control everything you say and everything
you do. But the solution is not to get rid of the electoral college, but to
get the federal government back in the box it belongs in.
Post by blazinglaser
As for the flat tax, I have hardly ever heard a flat tax plan with
details. Jerry Brown's plan was pretty detailed--but a big feature of
it was that it would lower most people's income tax by instituting an
additional tax on accumulated wealth!
Reagan's tax plan of the early 80s began as a flat tax, in fact as I
remember that's where the term came from. By the time it was detailed
in an actual bill it was clear it was just another Republican plan to
shift the tax burden from progressive to regressive taxes. The top
marginal rates were lowered and tax shelters and other 'loopholes'
were eliminated to make up for this. Then the loopholes were gradually
put back in and the shortfall was made up by raising the FICA.
And I suspect this new plan is similar to that, a bait-and-switch to
subsitute a national sales tax for income tax, for instance. Wait and
see.
Could be. As you can see by my subject line, I don't plan to be played
for a sucker again. A flat tax should be just that, a tax, say 11%, on all
your "income" which should be clearly defined. Defined so that down the
road the feds couldn't say "Okay, we've decided that 'income' also
includes..." who knows what? Garage sale proceeds? Selling your used car?
Your savings?

The good part would be that it would no longer serve the politicians to
fuck with the economy to get people to turn to them for help. The better
the economy, the more taxes they'd collect!
--
"I do not believe John Kerry is fit to be Commander-in-Chief of the armed
forces of the United States. This is not a political issue. It is a matter
of his judgment, truthfulness, reliability, loyalty and trust -- all
absolute tenets of command. His biography, 'Tour of Duty,' by Douglas
Brinkley, is replete with gross exaggerations, distortions of fact,
contradictions and slanderous lies. His contempt for the military and
authority is evident by even a most casual review of this biography."Rear
Admiral Roy Hoffman, USN (retired)
blazinglaser
2004-08-04 00:37:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim Alder
No, not really. If you get more than a few hundred people together,
democracy is really impossible to work. That's why the US is a Republic.
I hear -Republicans- say that a lot. 8^) But the words 'democracy'
and 'republic' are not mutually exclusive. 'Democracy' does not
necessarily mean that everyone participates on every issue. But our
style of democracy includes the principle of 'one man one
vote'--especially in issues like presidential elections where everyone
is allowed to vote. And the electoral college gives proportionally
more power to states of smaller populations.
Post by Jim Alder
As for the electoral college, it's not unfair to smaller states. The
idea of the US government was a government designed to govern the states,
not the people in them. Of course, that idea is a tad dated since the
federal government now wants to control everything you say and everything
you do. But the solution is not to get rid of the electoral college, but to
get the federal government back in the box it belongs in.
I guess that's an argueable case. But the fed.govt. being as big as
it is, how it is controlled becomes more important. As far as
stuffing the fed. govt. back in the box, I don't see Republicans
genuinely working towards that goal. Budgets and staffs always grow
under Republican admins.

The Libertarians are deadly serious about shrinking government, but in
a way they have the luxury of never expecting to be elected. They
will come out before every election and tell you exactly which
departments and agencies they are going to abolish, and which they're
going to de-budget, and let the chips fall where they may. It makes
for interesting reading, sort of like a novel by Jules Verne or H.G.
Wells.
Post by Jim Alder
Post by blazinglaser
And I suspect this new plan is similar to that, a bait-and-switch to
subsitute a national sales tax for income tax, for instance. Wait and
see.
Could be. As you can see by my subject line, I don't plan to be played
for a sucker again. A flat tax should be just that, a tax, say 11%, on all
your "income" which should be clearly defined. Defined so that down the
road the feds couldn't say "Okay, we've decided that 'income' also
includes..." who knows what? Garage sale proceeds? Selling your used car?
Your savings?
LOL. Yes, I'd buy that. It would probably require a Constitutional
amendment to keep Congress from redefining 'income' at some future
date. In fact I'd expect a loophole to be deliberately built into the
law.

But let's also include loan interest and capital gains and dividends.
We could argue about how big the govt. should be and how much it
should do, but why should it be paid for only by people who have to
work for a living?

I heard a plan from somewhere that the fairest idea would be to tax
money 1% every time it changed hands. That would spread out the load
and also provide as much revenue as the present system.
Post by Jim Alder
The good part would be that it would no longer serve the politicians to
fuck with the economy to get people to turn to them for help. The better
the economy, the more taxes they'd collect!
Yeah, that's the way it ought to be!
Jim Alder
2004-08-04 01:42:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by blazinglaser
Post by Jim Alder
No, not really. If you get more than a few hundred people together,
democracy is really impossible to work. That's why the US is a
Republic.
I hear -Republicans- say that a lot. 8^)
Really, a lot? I hardly hear anyone say it anymore.
Post by blazinglaser
But the words 'democracy'
and 'republic' are not mutually exclusive. 'Democracy' does not
necessarily mean that everyone participates on every issue.
Actually it does. Or it should. People like to change the definition of
words, seemingly for selfserving reasons. "Militia" is a good example from
the antigunners. "Income" for the IRS. It suits the politicians to make
people think they live in a democracy and all that "one vote" crap. It
makes "we the people" more likely to take some of the blame when the pols
do something duplicitous or stupid.
Post by blazinglaser
But our style of democracy includes the principle of 'one man one
vote'--especially in issues like presidential elections where everyone
is allowed to vote.
What do you mean 'especially'? When was the last time you voted on an
issue in a federal election? All you vote for is people, and that's a
republic.
Post by blazinglaser
And the electoral college gives proportionally
more power to states of smaller populations.
It's not supposed to. That's why some states have more electoral votes
than others.
Post by blazinglaser
Post by Jim Alder
As for the electoral college, it's not unfair to smaller states. The
idea of the US government was a government designed to govern the
states, not the people in them. Of course, that idea is a tad dated
since the federal government now wants to control everything you say
and everything you do. But the solution is not to get rid of the
electoral college, but to get the federal government back in the box it
belongs in.
I guess that's an argueable case. But the fed.govt. being as big as
it is, how it is controlled becomes more important. As far as
stuffing the fed. govt. back in the box, I don't see Republicans
genuinely working towards that goal. Budgets and staffs always grow
under Republican admins.
I haven't seen ANYONE trying to do it. I hear them talk about it, but
then, I hear them talk about all sorts of things.
Post by blazinglaser
The Libertarians are deadly serious about shrinking government, but in
a way they have the luxury of never expecting to be elected. They
will come out before every election and tell you exactly which
departments and agencies they are going to abolish, and which they're
going to de-budget, and let the chips fall where they may. It makes
for interesting reading, sort of like a novel by Jules Verne or H.G.
Wells.
Some of their ideas (Verne and Wells) ideas have come to pass.
Post by blazinglaser
Post by Jim Alder
Post by blazinglaser
And I suspect this new plan is similar to that, a bait-and-switch to
subsitute a national sales tax for income tax, for instance. Wait
and see.
Could be. As you can see by my subject line, I don't plan to be played
for a sucker again. A flat tax should be just that, a tax, say 11%, on
all your "income" which should be clearly defined. Defined so that down
the road the feds couldn't say "Okay, we've decided that 'income' also
includes..." who knows what? Garage sale proceeds? Selling your used
car? Your savings?
LOL. Yes, I'd buy that. It would probably require a Constitutional
amendment to keep Congress from redefining 'income' at some future
date. In fact I'd expect a loophole to be deliberately built into the
law.
If we fall for it twice, we deserve it. They changed the definition of
income around 1913. Before that, your wages and salaries didn't count as
income, because you were trading for your time and was hence a zero gain.
Post by blazinglaser
But let's also include loan interest and capital gains and dividends.
Those have always been included.
Post by blazinglaser
We could argue about how big the govt. should be and how much it
should do, but why should it be paid for only by people who have to
work for a living?
You want to tax the unemployed? Children? I've thought about it. If you
charge everyone the same dollar amount, and parents pay for their children,
it would certainly do something about the welfare mothers with ten kids. Or
it might. But what do you do if someone can't pay? Throw them out? On the
other hand, it would certainly keep government spending in check if the
government had to announce every year what they were charging each citizen.
Post by blazinglaser
I heard a plan from somewhere that the fairest idea would be to tax
money 1% every time it changed hands. That would spread out the load
and also provide as much revenue as the present system.
And every time a dollar changed hands a hundred times, it would be all
the government's? I don't think I like that plan.
Post by blazinglaser
Post by Jim Alder
The good part would be that it would no longer serve the politicians
to fuck with the economy to get people to turn to them for help. The
better the economy, the more taxes they'd collect!
Yeah, that's the way it ought to be!
Yeah, I've got visions and the rest of the world wears bifocals.
--
"I do not believe John Kerry is fit to be Commander-in-Chief of the armed
forces of the United States. This is not a political issue. It is a matter
of his judgment, truthfulness, reliability, loyalty and trust -- all
absolute tenets of command. His biography, 'Tour of Duty,' by Douglas
Brinkley, is replete with gross exaggerations, distortions of fact,
contradictions and slanderous lies. His contempt for the military and
authority is evident by even a most casual review of this biography."Rear
Admiral Roy Hoffman, USN (retired)
blazinglaser
2004-08-04 04:56:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim Alder
Post by blazinglaser
I hear -Republicans- say that a lot. 8^)
Really, a lot? I hardly hear anyone say it anymore.
I've heard it several times in this election: We are not a 'democracy'
we are a 'republic.' It's always seemed like sophistry to me, a play
on words. I have also hear that the Republican party is the only one
actually allowed by the Constitution. I don't know -where- that one
comes from. There are a lot of strange things people repeat over and
over that aren't true and they don't really understand what they mean.
Post by Jim Alder
Post by blazinglaser
'Democracy' does not
necessarily mean that everyone participates on every issue.
Actually it does. Or it should.
We live in a 'representative democracy'. We elect representatives who
represent us. That's a form of democracy, it is rule by the people
though perhaps not directly. In this day and age we could involve the
people more in ruling, and you might be right in saying that might not
be a great idea. But I do believe things would get better in this
country if more took an interest, if more people voted, because they
would watch to see what the result of their votes was and might vote
more wisely next time around.
Post by Jim Alder
People like to change the definition of
words, seemingly for selfserving reasons. "Militia" is a good example from
the antigunners. "Income" for the IRS. It suits the politicians to make
people think they live in a democracy and all that "one vote" crap. It
makes "we the people" more likely to take some of the blame when the pols
do something duplicitous or stupid.
Yes, I can't disagree with you there. We are greasy, slimy people, we
humans. We are much too easily corrupted.
Post by Jim Alder
Post by blazinglaser
But our style of democracy includes the principle of 'one man one
vote'--especially in issues like presidential elections where everyone
is allowed to vote.
What do you mean 'especially'? When was the last time you voted on an
issue in a federal election? All you vote for is people, and that's a
republic.
'Republic' just means it's not a monarchy or oligarchy (at least not
formally.) One of the founding ideas of this country is that we are
all of the same class, everyone is equal in the eyes of the law and
has an equal vote in elections. We all have a vote in the issue of
who should represent us in Congress and the White House.
Post by Jim Alder
Post by blazinglaser
And the electoral college gives proportionally
more power to states of smaller populations.
It's not supposed to. That's why some states have more electoral votes
than others.
Every state has a number of electors equal to the number of their
senators and congressmen. Of course every state has two senators,
even the smallest state. And every state gets at least one
congressman no matter how small it is (though I'm not sure if any are
so small these days that they don't rate a congressman through
population alone). So smaller states are better represented in the
electoral college. It's hard to believe that wasn't someone's
deliberate idea at the constitutional convention to get small states
to sign on who were afraid of being pushed around by the bigger, more
powerful states.
Post by Jim Alder
Post by blazinglaser
I guess that's an argueable case. But the fed.govt. being as big as
it is, how it is controlled becomes more important. As far as
stuffing the fed. govt. back in the box, I don't see Republicans
genuinely working towards that goal. Budgets and staffs always grow
under Republican admins.
I haven't seen ANYONE trying to do it. I hear them talk about it, but
then, I hear them talk about all sorts of things.
Exactly. Both parties get more power through growing government. The
whole system is set up to make government bigger and bigger. This
ought to be obvious to everyone, but lots of Republicans seem to want
to delude themselves. They did it especially during the Reagan admin.
A lot of them seem to believe even today that Reagan balanced the
budget, lowered everyone's taxes, and made government smaller.
Post by Jim Alder
Post by blazinglaser
It makes
for interesting reading, sort of like a novel by Jules Verne or H.G.
Wells.
Some of their ideas (Verne and Wells) ideas have come to pass.
True enough. But they were fantasies at the time. What made them
interesting (at the time) is that they were theoretically possible.
So is the flat tax. You can talk about it, you can imagine it, but
you can't see how we could get there from here.
Post by Jim Alder
If we fall for it twice, we deserve it. They changed the definition of
income around 1913. Before that, your wages and salaries didn't count as
income, because you were trading for your time and was hence a zero gain.
And when the income tax was introduced it was only like 1%, and only
above a certain level that would exclude 90% of workers.
Post by Jim Alder
Post by blazinglaser
But let's also include loan interest and capital gains and dividends.
Those have always been included.
Yes but whenever conservatives talk of tax reform they first want to
cut all the progressive taxes. To me, that's not tax reform.
Post by Jim Alder
Post by blazinglaser
We could argue about how big the govt. should be and how much it
should do, but why should it be paid for only by people who have to
work for a living?
You want to tax the unemployed? Children? I've thought about it. If you
charge everyone the same dollar amount, and parents pay for their children,
it would certainly do something about the welfare mothers with ten kids. Or
it might. But what do you do if someone can't pay? Throw them out? On the
other hand, it would certainly keep government spending in check if the
government had to announce every year what they were charging each citizen.
I just meant that 'income' should include all income, not just labor.
Republicans feel it is somehow immoral to tax rich people who can
afford it.

Another problem we have, I think, is the feeling that it's anyone's
right to have kids, whether they can afford them or not. Call me
anti-family values if you like. 8^) You need a license in this
country to have a dog, but ANYONE can have kids, as many as they like.
Post by Jim Alder
Post by blazinglaser
I heard a plan from somewhere that the fairest idea would be to tax
money 1% every time it changed hands. That would spread out the load
and also provide as much revenue as the present system.
And every time a dollar changed hands a hundred times, it would be all
the government's? I don't think I like that plan.
But look how it is today. The government releases a contract, say for
defense. The defense industries are notoriously corrupt, riddled
with inefficiencies and outright fraud. But that's okay, the real
purpose of the scheme is just to spend the money. For every employee
if you add up the employees income tax, the employee and employer's
combined FICA, that's about 30-40% right there. Then you go to spend
it. There's a tax on the gas you buy to drive to the store to spend
it. The store pays various taxes and also the manufacturer of the
goods you buy, plus every level of the distribution chain, all of
which goes into the price you pay, all of which is covered once more
by sales tax. By the time that money turns over three or four times
the govt. has it all back.

Every president since Truman has used defense spending to stimulate
the economy. In a way that was the whole purpose of the Cold War, to
justify massive defense spending. A ten percent increase in defense
spending, equalling perhaps 0.7% of the GNP, can pull the whole
economy out of a recession. How do you suppose it can do that?
Post by Jim Alder
Post by blazinglaser
Yeah, that's the way it ought to be!
Yeah, I've got visions and the rest of the world wears bifocals.
LOL! Well at least you've got a few neurons to rub together.
Jim Alder
2004-08-04 23:18:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by blazinglaser
Post by Jim Alder
Post by blazinglaser
I hear -Republicans- say that a lot. 8^)
Really, a lot? I hardly hear anyone say it anymore.
I've heard it several times in this election: We are not a 'democracy'
we are a 'republic.' It's always seemed like sophistry to me, a play
on words.
It is, but not the 'republic' part. The sophistry is in the 'democracy'
lie.
Post by blazinglaser
I have also heard that the Republican party is the only one
actually allowed by the Constitution. I don't know -where- that one
comes from.
Neither do I. It's BS.
Post by blazinglaser
There are a lot of strange things people repeat over and
over that aren't true and they don't really understand what they mean.
Take a look at the Federalist Papers. You can find it many places on the
net. Load the entire text of it into a word processor and search for the
word democracy. It appears rarely and usually not flatteringly. These are
some of the founding fathers writing this. You might also check the ANTI
Federalist papers with the same experiment. You could also check for
'republic.'
Post by blazinglaser
Post by Jim Alder
Post by blazinglaser
'Democracy' does not
necessarily mean that everyone participates on every issue.
Actually it does. Or it should.
We live in a 'representative democracy'.
There's your sophistry. That's an oxymoron.
Post by blazinglaser
We elect representatives who
represent us. That's a form of democracy,
No. That's a Republic.
Post by blazinglaser
It is rule by the people
though perhaps not directly. In this day and age we could involve the
people more in ruling, and you might be right in saying that might not
be a great idea. But I do believe things would get better in this
country if more took an interest, if more people voted, because they
would watch to see what the result of their votes was and might vote
more wisely next time around.
Half the problem - a big part, anyway - in this country is that people
don't care. Another part is that they're ignorant of the processes that run
our government and the issues. I can't decide if the media is equally
ignorant or if they deliberately refuse to educate their listeners. Maybe
both are true on different levels, I don't know. Many media talking heads
are obviously too stupid to grasp anything but sound bytes, car crashes and
house fires. Who hires these morons is another story.
Post by blazinglaser
Post by Jim Alder
People like to change the definition of
words, seemingly for selfserving reasons. "Militia" is a good example
from the antigunners. "Income" for the IRS. It suits the politicians to
make people think they live in a democracy and all that "one vote"
crap. It makes "we the people" more likely to take some of the blame
when the pols do something duplicitous or stupid.
Yes, I can't disagree with you there. We are greasy, slimy people, we
humans. We are much too easily corrupted.
Hey, speak for yourself! ;^D
Post by blazinglaser
Post by Jim Alder
Post by blazinglaser
But our style of democracy includes the principle of 'one man one
vote'--especially in issues like presidential elections where
everyone is allowed to vote.
What do you mean 'especially'? When was the last time you voted on
an issue in a federal election? All you vote for is people, and
that's a republic.
'Republic' just means it's not a monarchy or oligarchy (at least not
formally.) One of the founding ideas of this country is that we are
all of the same class, everyone is equal in the eyes of the law and
has an equal vote in elections. We all have a vote in the issue of
who should represent us in Congress and the White House.
That's not an issue. And you didn't answer my question.
Post by blazinglaser
Post by Jim Alder
Post by blazinglaser
And the electoral college gives proportionally
more power to states of smaller populations.
It's not supposed to. That's why some states have more electoral
votes than others.
Every state has a number of electors equal to the number of their
senators and congressmen. Of course every state has two senators,
even the smallest state. And every state gets at least one
congressman no matter how small it is (though I'm not sure if any are
so small these days that they don't rate a congressman through
population alone). So smaller states are better represented in the
electoral college. It's hard to believe that wasn't someone's
deliberate idea at the constitutional convention to get small states
to sign on who were afraid of being pushed around by the bigger, more
powerful states.
Post by Jim Alder
Post by blazinglaser
I guess that's an argueable case. But the fed.govt. being as big as
it is, how it is controlled becomes more important. As far as
stuffing the fed. govt. back in the box, I don't see Republicans
genuinely working towards that goal. Budgets and staffs always grow
under Republican admins.
I haven't seen ANYONE trying to do it. I hear them talk about it,
but then, I hear them talk about all sorts of things.
Exactly. Both parties get more power through growing government. The
whole system is set up to make government bigger and bigger. This
ought to be obvious to everyone, but lots of Republicans seem to want
to delude themselves. They did it especially during the Reagan admin.
A lot of them seem to believe even today that Reagan balanced the
budget, lowered everyone's taxes, and made government smaller.
Well, he did a few things right. I never have figured how people think a
president can change all these things singlehandedly. I don't know how one
could, given the resistance from 535 senators and congressmen.
Post by blazinglaser
Post by Jim Alder
Post by blazinglaser
It makes for interesting reading, sort of like a novel by Jules
Verne or H.G. Wells.
Some of their ideas (Verne and Wells) ideas have come to pass.
True enough. But they were fantasies at the time. What made them
interesting (at the time) is that they were theoretically possible.
So is the flat tax. You can talk about it, you can imagine it, but
you can't see how we could get there from here.
Perhaps Hastert's book will tell us how to arrive there. I don't think
his book is one of fiction.
Post by blazinglaser
Post by Jim Alder
If we fall for it twice, we deserve it. They changed the definition
of income around 1913. Before that, your wages and salaries didn't count
as income, because you were trading for your time and was hence a zero
gain.
And when the income tax was introduced it was only like 1%, and only
above a certain level that would exclude 90% of workers.
I believe your income had to be $3000 or more, a fortune in 1913. Anyone
with the slightest clue about government should have alarms go off in their
heads anytime a new law or tax is any way set in real dollars. Since
Government creates inflation, anyone should know that they use it to their
advantage.
Post by blazinglaser
Post by Jim Alder
Post by blazinglaser
But let's also include loan interest and capital gains and dividends.
Those have always been included.
Yes but whenever conservatives talk of tax reform they first want to
cut all the progressive taxes. To me, that's not tax reform.
Depends. If you're talking about taxes only the rich have, like
inheritance, then it's an unfair tax.
Post by blazinglaser
Post by Jim Alder
Post by blazinglaser
We could argue about how big the govt. should be and how much it
should do, but why should it be paid for only by people who have to
work for a living?
You want to tax the unemployed? Children? I've thought about it. If you
charge everyone the same dollar amount, and parents pay for their
children, it would certainly do something about the welfare mothers
with ten kids. Or it might. But what do you do if someone can't pay?
Throw them out? On the other hand, it would certainly keep government
spending in check if the government had to announce every year what
they were charging each citizen.
I just meant that 'income' should include all income, not just labor.
Republicans feel it is somehow immoral to tax rich people who can
afford it.
No, I don't think so. I think they object to rich people being taxed so
much more than the rest, proportionately speaking.
Post by blazinglaser
Another problem we have, I think, is the feeling that it's anyone's
right to have kids, whether they can afford them or not. Call me
anti-family values if you like. 8^) You need a license in this
country to have a dog, but ANYONE can have kids, as many as they like.
While I see all sorts of people who should probably not be parents, or
at least not without extensive training, I don't know of anyone, especially
the government, who I feel is qualified to decide who can and who can't.
I'd just be happy if they wouldn't subsidize parenting with welfare.
Post by blazinglaser
Post by Jim Alder
Post by blazinglaser
I heard a plan from somewhere that the fairest idea would be to tax
money 1% every time it changed hands. That would spread out the load
and also provide as much revenue as the present system.
And every time a dollar changed hands a hundred times, it would be
all the government's? I don't think I like that plan.
But look how it is today. The government releases a contract, say for
defense. The defense industries are notoriously corrupt, riddled
with inefficiencies and outright fraud. But that's okay, the real
purpose of the scheme is just to spend the money. For every employee
if you add up the employees income tax, the employee and employer's
combined FICA, that's about 30-40% right there. Then you go to spend
it. There's a tax on the gas you buy to drive to the store to spend
it. The store pays various taxes and also the manufacturer of the
goods you buy, plus every level of the distribution chain, all of
which goes into the price you pay, all of which is covered once more
by sales tax. By the time that money turns over three or four times
the govt. has it all back.
Every president since Truman has used defense spending to stimulate
the economy. In a way that was the whole purpose of the Cold War, to
justify massive defense spending. A ten percent increase in defense
spending, equalling perhaps 0.7% of the GNP, can pull the whole
economy out of a recession. How do you suppose it can do that?
Beats me.
Post by blazinglaser
Post by Jim Alder
Post by blazinglaser
Yeah, that's the way it ought to be!
Yeah, I've got visions and the rest of the world wears bifocals.
LOL! Well at least you've got a few neurons to rub together.
Actually I stole that line from Butch Cassidy.
--
"I do not believe John Kerry is fit to be Commander-in-Chief of the armed
forces of the United States. This is not a political issue. It is a matter
of his judgment, truthfulness, reliability, loyalty and trust -- all
absolute tenets of command. His biography, 'Tour of Duty,' by Douglas
Brinkley, is replete with gross exaggerations, distortions of fact,
contradictions and slanderous lies. His contempt for the military and
authority is evident by even a most casual review of this biography."Rear
Admiral Roy Hoffman, USN (retired)
blazinglaser
2004-08-06 03:42:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim Alder
Post by blazinglaser
We live in a 'representative democracy'.
There's your sophistry. That's an oxymoron.
I don't mean to go around and around with you, but 'democracy' doesn't
necessarily mean every citizen vote on every issue. It just means
that the citizens rule. "Representative democracy" means we elect
people to -represent- us, not that we elect quasi-royals who then sell
governmental favors to the highest bidder.
Post by Jim Alder
Post by blazinglaser
We elect representatives who
represent us. That's a form of democracy,
No. That's a Republic.
Potato potahto. 8^)
Post by Jim Alder
Half the problem - a big part, anyway - in this country is that people
don't care. Another part is that they're ignorant of the processes that run
our government and the issues. I can't decide if the media is equally
ignorant or if they deliberately refuse to educate their listeners. Maybe
both are true on different levels, I don't know. Many media talking heads
are obviously too stupid to grasp anything but sound bytes, car crashes and
house fires. Who hires these morons is another story.
I couldn't agree with you more. But it's WE who hire them. News is a
big money maker these days. The whole trick is to get those eyeballs.
The news media grossly oversimplify everything to make it simpler for
people to understand, people who don't care as much about the details
as we do. This also makes the media easy for politicians to
manipulate. It is said that we get the government we deserve. The
same goes for news media I guess. The most frightening statistic is
that something like 80% of Americans get ALL their news from TV.
Post by Jim Alder
That's not an issue. And you didn't answer my question.
The question was when was the last time I voted on an issue that
affected everyone. Well here in California we can do that, in fact
it's about the ony way to make a law because our legislature is
paralyzed by competing special interests. But in about three months
I will also vote on what perhaps is the overarching issue of these
times--who will be our president for the next four years.
Post by Jim Alder
Well, he did a few things right. I never have figured how people think a
president can change all these things singlehandedly. I don't know how one
could, given the resistance from 535 senators and congressmen.
Part of the job is to provide leadership. Reagan never sent back a
budget he thought was too big. He made no difficult budget decisions,
he just signed everything that passed over his desk. I find this
incredibly hypocritcal in a president who campaigned with the slogan
that a $900 billion national debt was completely unacceptable, even if
it was for defense because no nation with a $900 billion debt could be
truly strong.

What recent president sent back budgets he thought were too big? To a
Congress controlled by 'the party of fiscal responsibility'?

[flat tax]
Post by Jim Alder
Perhaps Hastert's book will tell us how to arrive there. I don't think
his book is one of fiction.
It might have some valid ideas, but notice they're in a book and not a
bill. As the old saying goes: Nothing is impossible for the man who
doesn't have to do it himself.
Post by Jim Alder
I believe your income had to be $3000 or more, a fortune in 1913. Anyone
with the slightest clue about government should have alarms go off in their
heads anytime a new law or tax is any way set in real dollars. Since
Government creates inflation, anyone should know that they use it to their
advantage.
I seem to remember the income tax was also supposed to be a temporary
measure (don't quote me on that).

Yes, government creates inflation. I really thought we were going to
overcome the Reagan/Bush debt through another huge wave of 70s-style
inflation. We may just yet.
Post by Jim Alder
Post by blazinglaser
Yes but whenever conservatives talk of tax reform they first want to
cut all the progressive taxes. To me, that's not tax reform.
Depends. If you're talking about taxes only the rich have, like
inheritance, then it's an unfair tax.
But there are also taxes paid mostly by working people, like FICA
(which for most working people is more than their fed. income tax, if
you count the employer's contribution). Personally I don't have a
problem with inheritance tax. Maybe raise the limit. See it as a tax
on being filthy rich. Like the state lottery is a tax on not
understanding statistics and probability.
Post by Jim Alder
Post by blazinglaser
I just meant that 'income' should include all income, not just labor.
Republicans feel it is somehow immoral to tax rich people who can
afford it.
No, I don't think so. I think they object to rich people being taxed so
much more than the rest, proportionately speaking.
But they are taxed less, not more. I wouldn't mind seeing them taxed
a little more, proportionately.
Post by Jim Alder
While I see all sorts of people who should probably not be parents, or
at least not without extensive training, I don't know of anyone, especially
the government, who I feel is qualified to decide who can and who can't.
I'd just be happy if they wouldn't subsidize parenting with welfare.
It's more than just welfare! It's govt. health insurance, education,
child tax credits, vaccinations, dozens of things.
Post by Jim Alder
Post by blazinglaser
Every president since Truman has used defense spending to stimulate
the economy. In a way that was the whole purpose of the Cold War, to
justify massive defense spending. A ten percent increase in defense
spending, equalling perhaps 0.7% of the GNP, can pull the whole
economy out of a recession. How do you suppose it can do that?
Beats me.
It was a rhetorical question. The point is that defense money is
often seen as 'seeding' the economy.
Post by Jim Alder
Post by blazinglaser
Post by Jim Alder
Yeah, I've got visions and the rest of the world wears bifocals.
LOL! Well at least you've got a few neurons to rub together.
Actually I stole that line from Butch Cassidy.
Hmm. Don't remember it. Good line though.
Jim Alder
2004-08-06 06:20:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by blazinglaser
Post by Jim Alder
Post by blazinglaser
We live in a 'representative democracy'.
There's your sophistry. That's an oxymoron.
I don't mean to go around and around with you, but 'democracy' doesn't
necessarily mean every citizen vote on every issue. It just means
that the citizens rule. "Representative democracy" means we elect
people to -represent- us, not that we elect quasi-royals who then sell
governmental favors to the highest bidder.
I don't want to keep repeating myself either. See my previous responses
to this argument..

From Greek democratia,from demos'the people' plus kratia'power, rule'.

www.philosophos.com/knowledge_base/archives_6/philosophy_questions_628.html

Maybe if you'd take my advice about the Federalist papers, rather than
snipping it and pretending I never said it, you wouldn't cling to the same
argument.

"In a democracy, where a multitude of people exercise in person the
legislative functions..."

"From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure
democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of
citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit
of no cure for the mischiefs of faction."

"A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of
representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the
cure for which we are seeking."
Post by blazinglaser
Post by Jim Alder
Post by blazinglaser
We elect representatives who
represent us. That's a form of democracy,
No. That's a Republic.
Potato potahto. 8^)
Right and wrong.
Post by blazinglaser
Post by Jim Alder
Half the problem - a big part, anyway - in this country is that
people don't care. Another part is that they're ignorant of the
processes that run our government and the issues. I can't decide
if the media is equally ignorant or if they deliberately refuse
to educate their listeners. Maybe both are true on different
levels, I don't know. Many media talking heads are obviously too
stupid to grasp anything but sound bytes, car crashes and house
fires. Who hires these morons is another story.
I couldn't agree with you more. But it's WE who hire them. News is a
big money maker these days. The whole trick is to get those eyeballs.
The news media grossly oversimplify everything to make it simpler for
people to understand, people who don't care as much about the details
as we do. This also makes the media easy for politicians to
manipulate. It is said that we get the government we deserve. The
same goes for news media I guess. The most frightening statistic is
that something like 80% of Americans get ALL their news from TV.
Post by Jim Alder
That's not an issue. And you didn't answer my question.
The question was when was the last time I voted on an issue that
affected everyone. Well here in California we can do that, in fact
it's about the ony way to make a law because our legislature is
paralyzed by competing special interests.
[sigh....] You DO know we - or at least I am talking about the FEDERAL
government in this thread, don't you?
Post by blazinglaser
But in about three months
I will also vote on what perhaps is the overarching issue of these
times--who will be our president for the next four years.
Post by Jim Alder
Well, he did a few things right. I never have figured how people
think a president can change all these things singlehandedly. I
don't know how one could, given the resistance from 535 senators
and congressmen.
Part of the job is to provide leadership. Reagan never sent back a
budget he thought was too big. He made no difficult budget decisions,
he just signed everything that passed over his desk. I find this
incredibly hypocritcal in a president who campaigned with the slogan
that a $900 billion national debt was completely unacceptable, even if
it was for defense because no nation with a $900 billion debt could be
truly strong.
What recent president sent back budgets he thought were too big? To a
Congress controlled by 'the party of fiscal responsibility'?
[flat tax]
Post by Jim Alder
Perhaps Hastert's book will tell us how to arrive there. I don't
think his book is one of fiction.
It might have some valid ideas, but notice they're in a book and not a
bill. As the old saying goes: Nothing is impossible for the man who
doesn't have to do it himself.
No one does it by himself in the government. And I don't know if it's in
a bill or not.
Post by blazinglaser
Post by Jim Alder
I believe your income had to be $3000 or more, a fortune in 1913. Anyone
with the slightest clue about government should have alarms go off in
their heads anytime a new law or tax is any way set in real dollars.
Since Government creates inflation, anyone should know that they use it
to their advantage.
I seem to remember the income tax was also supposed to be a temporary
measure (don't quote me on that).
You're thinking of withholding, I believe. It was both temporary and
voluntary.
Post by blazinglaser
Yes, government creates inflation. I really thought we were going to
overcome the Reagan/Bush debt through another huge wave of 70s-style
inflation. We may just yet.
Post by Jim Alder
Post by blazinglaser
Yes but whenever conservatives talk of tax reform they first want to
cut all the progressive taxes. To me, that's not tax reform.
Depends. If you're talking about taxes only the rich have, like
inheritance, then it's an unfair tax.
But there are also taxes paid mostly by working people, like FICA
(which for most working people is more than their fed. income tax, if
you count the employer's contribution).
That's not a tax. I don't know of any taxes "paid mostly by working
people."
Post by blazinglaser
Personally I don't have a
problem with inheritance tax.
Is there any chance of you paying it?
Post by blazinglaser
Maybe raise the limit. See it as a tax
on being filthy rich.
It's a tax on being dead.
Post by blazinglaser
Like the state lottery is a tax on not
understanding statistics and probability.
Post by Jim Alder
Post by blazinglaser
I just meant that 'income' should include all income, not just labor.
Republicans feel it is somehow immoral to tax rich people who can
afford it.
No, I don't think so. I think they object to rich people being taxed
so much more than the rest, proportionately speaking.
But they are taxed less, not more. I wouldn't mind seeing them taxed
a little more, proportionately.
No. They aren't. Like the middle class, they're taxed on what they take
in each year, not on how much they have. There are ways of deferring or
avoiding some of them that are easier accessed by the high incomes, true.
Post by blazinglaser
Post by Jim Alder
While I see all sorts of people who should probably not be parents,
or at least not without extensive training, I don't know of anyone,
especially the government, who I feel is qualified to decide who can
and who can't. I'd just be happy if they wouldn't subsidize parenting
with welfare.
It's more than just welfare! It's govt. health insurance, education,
child tax credits, vaccinations, dozens of things.
All different issues.
Post by blazinglaser
Post by Jim Alder
Post by blazinglaser
Every president since Truman has used defense spending to stimulate
the economy. In a way that was the whole purpose of the Cold War, to
justify massive defense spending. A ten percent increase in defense
spending, equalling perhaps 0.7% of the GNP, can pull the whole
economy out of a recession. How do you suppose it can do that?
Beats me.
It was a rhetorical question. The point is that defense money is
often seen as 'seeding' the economy.
Post by Jim Alder
Post by blazinglaser
Post by Jim Alder
Yeah, I've got visions and the rest of the world wears bifocals.
LOL! Well at least you've got a few neurons to rub together.
Actually I stole that line from Butch Cassidy.
Hmm. Don't remember it. Good line though.
--
"I do not believe John Kerry is fit to be Commander-in-Chief of the armed
forces of the United States. This is not a political issue. It is a matter
of his judgment, truthfulness, reliability, loyalty and trust -- all
absolute tenets of command. His biography, 'Tour of Duty,' by Douglas
Brinkley, is replete with gross exaggerations, distortions of fact,
contradictions and slanderous lies. His contempt for the military and
authority is evident by even a most casual review of this biography."Rear
Admiral Roy Hoffman, USN (retired)
El Loco
2004-08-06 12:08:51 UTC
Permalink
Actually, we live in a "representative republic".
True democracy is "mob rule" and is probably
the worst of all forms of government.
==========
Post by blazinglaser
Post by Jim Alder
Post by blazinglaser
We live in a 'representative democracy'.
There's your sophistry. That's an oxymoron.
I don't mean to go around and around with you, but 'democracy' doesn't
necessarily mean every citizen vote on every issue. It just means
that the citizens rule. "Representative democracy" means we elect
people to -represent- us, not that we elect quasi-royals who then sell
governmental favors to the highest bidder.
Post by Jim Alder
Post by blazinglaser
We elect representatives who
represent us. That's a form of democracy,
No. That's a Republic.
Potato potahto. 8^)
Post by Jim Alder
Half the problem - a big part, anyway - in this country is that people
don't care. Another part is that they're ignorant of the processes that run
our government and the issues. I can't decide if the media is equally
ignorant or if they deliberately refuse to educate their listeners. Maybe
both are true on different levels, I don't know. Many media talking heads
are obviously too stupid to grasp anything but sound bytes, car crashes and
house fires. Who hires these morons is another story.
I couldn't agree with you more. But it's WE who hire them. News is a
big money maker these days. The whole trick is to get those eyeballs.
The news media grossly oversimplify everything to make it simpler for
people to understand, people who don't care as much about the details
as we do. This also makes the media easy for politicians to
manipulate. It is said that we get the government we deserve. The
same goes for news media I guess. The most frightening statistic is
that something like 80% of Americans get ALL their news from TV.
Post by Jim Alder
That's not an issue. And you didn't answer my question.
The question was when was the last time I voted on an issue that
affected everyone. Well here in California we can do that, in fact
it's about the ony way to make a law because our legislature is
paralyzed by competing special interests. But in about three months
I will also vote on what perhaps is the overarching issue of these
times--who will be our president for the next four years.
Post by Jim Alder
Well, he did a few things right. I never have figured how people think a
president can change all these things singlehandedly. I don't know how one
could, given the resistance from 535 senators and congressmen.
Part of the job is to provide leadership. Reagan never sent back a
budget he thought was too big. He made no difficult budget decisions,
he just signed everything that passed over his desk. I find this
incredibly hypocritcal in a president who campaigned with the slogan
that a $900 billion national debt was completely unacceptable, even if
it was for defense because no nation with a $900 billion debt could be
truly strong.
What recent president sent back budgets he thought were too big? To a
Congress controlled by 'the party of fiscal responsibility'?
[flat tax]
Post by Jim Alder
Perhaps Hastert's book will tell us how to arrive there. I don't think
his book is one of fiction.
It might have some valid ideas, but notice they're in a book and not a
bill. As the old saying goes: Nothing is impossible for the man who
doesn't have to do it himself.
Post by Jim Alder
I believe your income had to be $3000 or more, a fortune in 1913. Anyone
with the slightest clue about government should have alarms go off in their
heads anytime a new law or tax is any way set in real dollars. Since
Government creates inflation, anyone should know that they use it to their
advantage.
I seem to remember the income tax was also supposed to be a temporary
measure (don't quote me on that).
Yes, government creates inflation. I really thought we were going to
overcome the Reagan/Bush debt through another huge wave of 70s-style
inflation. We may just yet.
Post by Jim Alder
Post by blazinglaser
Yes but whenever conservatives talk of tax reform they first want to
cut all the progressive taxes. To me, that's not tax reform.
Depends. If you're talking about taxes only the rich have, like
inheritance, then it's an unfair tax.
But there are also taxes paid mostly by working people, like FICA
(which for most working people is more than their fed. income tax, if
you count the employer's contribution). Personally I don't have a
problem with inheritance tax. Maybe raise the limit. See it as a tax
on being filthy rich. Like the state lottery is a tax on not
understanding statistics and probability.
Post by Jim Alder
Post by blazinglaser
I just meant that 'income' should include all income, not just labor.
Republicans feel it is somehow immoral to tax rich people who can
afford it.
No, I don't think so. I think they object to rich people being taxed so
much more than the rest, proportionately speaking.
But they are taxed less, not more. I wouldn't mind seeing them taxed
a little more, proportionately.
Post by Jim Alder
While I see all sorts of people who should probably not be parents, or
at least not without extensive training, I don't know of anyone, especially
the government, who I feel is qualified to decide who can and who can't.
I'd just be happy if they wouldn't subsidize parenting with welfare.
It's more than just welfare! It's govt. health insurance, education,
child tax credits, vaccinations, dozens of things.
Post by Jim Alder
Post by blazinglaser
Every president since Truman has used defense spending to stimulate
the economy. In a way that was the whole purpose of the Cold War, to
justify massive defense spending. A ten percent increase in defense
spending, equalling perhaps 0.7% of the GNP, can pull the whole
economy out of a recession. How do you suppose it can do that?
Beats me.
It was a rhetorical question. The point is that defense money is
often seen as 'seeding' the economy.
Post by Jim Alder
Post by blazinglaser
Post by Jim Alder
Yeah, I've got visions and the rest of the world wears bifocals.
LOL! Well at least you've got a few neurons to rub together.
Actually I stole that line from Butch Cassidy.
Hmm. Don't remember it. Good line though.
Frank Clarke
2004-08-06 00:37:36 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 03 Aug 2004 21:56:24 -0700, blazinglaser <nospam.please>
Post by blazinglaser
I have also hear that the Republican party is the only one
actually allowed by the Constitution. I don't know -where- that one
comes from.
Whoever told you that has a "reading comprehension" problem:

Article IV
....
Section 4.
The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a
republican form of government, and shall protect ...

"...a republican form of government..." doesn't mean the Republican
Party, but one in which the people elect others to represent them.


(change Arabic number to Roman numeral to email)
blazinglaser
2004-08-06 03:11:35 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 06 Aug 2004 00:37:36 GMT, Frank Clarke
Post by Frank Clarke
Section 4.
The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a
republican form of government, and shall protect ...
LOL! So that's where it comes from! 8^)
Frank Clarke
2004-08-06 00:30:28 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 03 Aug 2004 17:37:39 -0700, blazinglaser <nospam.please>
Post by blazinglaser
But our
style of democracy includes the principle of 'one man one
vote'--especially in issues like presidential elections where everyone
is allowed to vote.
That principle seems not to have made it into print in the
Constitution. However did they let that slip?


(change Arabic number to Roman numeral to email)
Frank Clarke
2004-08-06 00:29:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim Alder
As for the electoral college, it's not unfair to smaller states. The
idea of the US government was a government designed to govern the states,
not the people in them.
It was? I always thought the idea of the federal government was to
do a very small laundry list of things it didn't make sense for -n-
states to do independently: fight wars and regularize interstate
commerce, the currency and the judiciary. Those independent states
would handle everything else.

At least, that's what I read when I read the Constitution.


(change Arabic number to Roman numeral to email)
Jim Alder
2004-08-06 06:23:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Frank Clarke
Post by Jim Alder
As for the electoral college, it's not unfair to smaller states. The
idea of the US government was a government designed to govern the
states, not the people in them.
It was? I always thought the idea of the federal government was to
do a very small laundry list of things it didn't make sense for -n-
states to do independently: fight wars and regularize interstate
commerce, the currency and the judiciary. Those independent states
would handle everything else.
That's what I said.
Post by Frank Clarke
At least, that's what I read when I read the Constitution.
Me. too. I think our only argument is the meaning of 'govern.'
Post by Frank Clarke
(change Arabic number to Roman numeral to email)
--
Hey, Kerry! Mr. Ed called. He wants his face back!
Jean-Fraude Kerry
2004-08-02 19:41:50 UTC
Permalink
Subject: Re: I'll believe it when I see it, but...
Date: 8/2/04 12:32 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Post by Jim Alder
Post by Sam Funn
Flat tax would not eliminate the IRS
Uh huh. When it was the Republican's idea it was "nuts" but now that it
was also the Democrats' idea, it just won't do what they claim?
WTF? You're now changing the argument from eliminating the IRS (you're
original hair brained premise) to going to a flat tax and reducing it. You
can't change the premise of an argument and then accuse me of flip flopping.
You seem to have a really fucked up mind.
Seek help.
You maroon! You didn't read the original post, which includes Hastert's
argument that we need to go to a flat tax or national VAT to get rid of the IRS
as it presently exists.

Per Drudge:

"The Speaker of the House will push for replacing the nation's current tax
system with a national sales tax or a value added tax, Hill sources tell
DRUDGE."


No one's introduced NEW MATTER here.

It's just that you are too dense to read what's put in front of you!

And if you think that what would be needed in terms of people and bureaucracy
after introducing a new system would be anything like the present IRS, you are
nuts.

Suppose, fool, the IRS was ABOLISHED and replaced with something 1/20 the size.

Are you going to tell us that because we will still need SOME SORT of tax
agency that we wouldn't be getting rid of the IRS?

"Fucked up mind", indeed..............
True, a
Post by Jim Alder
Flat Tax would not 'eliminate' the IRS. It would just change it to a
minimum number of book keepers and paper pushers,. which is what it should
be, not the terrifying organization of societal manipulators presently
running it.
Post by Sam Funn
Post by Jim Alder
Post by Sam Funn
Go for it. We always knew the right was nuts. This kind of
anti-establishment BS will prove it.
"Democrats introduced flat tax legislation long before Dick Armey
proposed his plan in 1994. Within months of economists Robert Hall and
Alvin Rabushka unveiling the original flat tax in 1981, Senator Dennis
DeConcini of Arizona and Representative Leon Panetta of California
introduced versions in Congress."
http://www.cato.org/dailys/07-30-04.html
Post by Sam Funn
Post by Jim Alder
REPUBLICANS PLAN PUSH FOR ELIMINATION OF IRS
A domestic centerpiece of the Bush/GOP agenda for a second Bush
term is getting rid of the Internal Revenue Service, the DRUDGE
REPORT has learned.
--
"I do not believe John Kerry is fit to be Commander-in-Chief of the armed
forces of the United States. This is not a political issue. It is a matter
of his judgment, truthfulness, reliability, loyalty and trust -- all
absolute tenets of command. His biography, 'Tour of Duty,' by Douglas
Brinkley, is replete with gross exaggerations, distortions of fact,
contradictions and slanderous lies. His contempt for the military and
authority is evident by even a most casual review of this biography."Rear
Admiral Roy Hoffman, USN (retired)
~~~~~~~~~~~~

"This is John Effing Kerry, and I fucking approved this fucking message."
Dave Simpson
2004-08-03 00:46:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim Alder
Post by Sam Funn
Flat tax would not eliminate the IRS
Uh huh. When it was the Republican's idea it was "nuts" but now that it
was also the Democrats' idea, it just won't do what they claim? True, a
Flat Tax would not 'eliminate' the IRS. It would just change it to a
minimum number of book keepers and paper pushers,. which is what it should
be, not the terrifying organization of societal manipulators presently
running it.
Indeed, among normal Americans not only is the income tax hated, but
attitudes toward the IRS, associated with that income tax, tend to be
unpleasant as well.

Going to a VAT, and indirect rather than direct and highly intrusive
as well as initiative-destroying taxation, would be much, much better.


Dave Simpson
Mike Martinez
2004-08-03 09:55:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim Alder
Flat Tax would not 'eliminate' the IRS. It would just change it to a
minimum number of book keepers and paper pushers,. which is what it should
be, not the terrifying organization of societal manipulators presently
running it.
The IRS isn't that intimidating to most of us.
Once a year, we fill out a form (no more complex than a job application) and
get a check for a coupla grand.
Not very scary at all.

Of course, most of us aren't stashing our money in Belize, or setting up tax
shelters in the Cayman Islands.
Jim Alder
2004-08-03 15:06:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Martinez
Post by Jim Alder
Flat Tax would not 'eliminate' the IRS. It would just change it to a
minimum number of book keepers and paper pushers,. which is what it
should be, not the terrifying organization of societal manipulators
presently running it.
The IRS isn't that intimidating to most of us.
Most of whom?

"For too long the IRS has used secrecy, intimidation, and fear to do
battle against those it is called to serve, the American taxpayers. I found
it especially interesting that during the hearings those who know the IRS
best, its own employees, were the most afraid. Those who know what the IRS
does were the ones who wanted to protect their identities." Senator Wayne
Allard - http://allard.senate.gov/issues/item.cfm?id=488&rands_type=3
Post by Mike Martinez
Once a year, we fill out a form (no more complex than a job
application) and get a check for a coupla grand.
Not very scary at all.
Yeah, the suckers like it. They don't realize that they're loaning the
government thousands a year at zero interest, then have to submit paperwork
to get it back.
Post by Mike Martinez
Of course, most of us aren't stashing our money in Belize, or setting
up tax shelters in the Cayman Islands.
Of course, many of us don't assume that 'most of us' are thinking the
same way we are.
--
"I do not believe John Kerry is fit to be Commander-in-Chief of the armed
forces of the United States. This is not a political issue. It is a matter
of his judgment, truthfulness, reliability, loyalty and trust -- all
absolute tenets of command. His biography, 'Tour of Duty,' by Douglas
Brinkley, is replete with gross exaggerations, distortions of fact,
contradictions and slanderous lies. His contempt for the military and
authority is evident by even a most casual review of this biography."Rear
Admiral Roy Hoffman, USN (retired)
a***@spankrightwing.com
2004-08-02 16:14:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim Alder
Post by Sam Funn
Go for it. We always knew the right was nuts. This kind of
anti-establishment BS will prove it.
"Democrats introduced flat tax legislation long before Dick Armey
proposed his plan in 1994.
Cato, eh?

Fucking loonytarian morons.

Is that what you are, fuckwit?

You're worse'n Beck and Knicklas put together.
Post by Jim Alder
---------------------------------------------------
On Sun, 26 Jan 2003 16:08:21 -0500, Christopher Morton
Post by Sam Funn
Sorry, I'm a pro-abortion, pro-affirmative action liberal.
No, MORTONLOON
All you are, or ever were, or ever WILL be is a
big, dumb, ass-kicked Gunwhoring chickenshit
usenet moron.
Post by Jim Alder
Post by Sam Funn
Yes, and it pisses you off, you crossburning ignoramus
Dave Simpson
2004-08-03 00:41:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sam Funn
Go for it. We always knew the right was nuts. This kind of
anti-establishment BS will prove it.
Your illogical set of silly statements are what is nutty here.

Normal people overwhelmingly hate the income tax; income-tax hatred
and haters are the Establishment. A consumption tax replacement is
superior on all grounds, including economic and moral. The
Constitution should be amended to repeal authorization to tax incomes,
the income tax abolished, and a consumption tax (I favor the VAT)
levied in its place. Ideally the consumption tax would also replace
the federal retirement-entitlement-program (Social Security, Medicare)
payroll taxes.


Dave Simpson
Grain of Sand
2004-08-03 19:00:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave Simpson
Post by Sam Funn
Go for it. We always knew the right was nuts. This kind of
anti-establishment BS will prove it.
Your illogical set of silly statements are what is nutty here.
Normal people overwhelmingly hate the income tax; income-tax hatred
and haters are the Establishment. A consumption tax replacement is
superior on all grounds, including economic and moral.
even when the tax is on food?

The
Post by Dave Simpson
Constitution should be amended to repeal authorization to tax incomes,
the income tax abolished, and a consumption tax (I favor the VAT)
levied in its place. Ideally the consumption tax would also replace
the federal retirement-entitlement-program (Social Security, Medicare)
payroll taxes.
Ideally....ideolouge....

--
" Victory breeds hatred. The defeated live in pain. Happily
the peaceful live, giving up victory and defeat." - Dhammapada

http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/sbe10/
T. R. Malthus
2004-08-02 17:18:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim Alder
REPUBLICANS PLAN PUSH FOR ELIMINATION OF IRS
A domestic centerpiece of the Bush/GOP agenda for a second Bush term is
getting rid of the Internal Revenue Service, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.
Not that I put much credence in anything from Drudge, the Republicans
may float this idea before the election because it is a very popular
idea among a large segment of the electorate.

If they win in November, the idea will quietly disappear as it will
have served its purpose.

If they lose, the Republican controlled House may see some half-heated
debate on the subject but no real movement towards enacting a VAT (too
European) or eliminating the IRS will occur because, in the end, it is
not to either party's advantage for the current form of taxation to
end.
Jim Alder
2004-08-02 18:44:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by T. R. Malthus
Post by Jim Alder
REPUBLICANS PLAN PUSH FOR ELIMINATION OF IRS
A domestic centerpiece of the Bush/GOP agenda for a second Bush term is
getting rid of the Internal Revenue Service, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.
Not that I put much credence in anything from Drudge
Then you might not like this either;

WASHINGTON (Talon News) -- Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert (R-IL)
writes in a new book that Congressional Republicans plan to push for the
elimination of the Internal Revenue Service during a Bush second term.
http://www.gopusa.com/news/2004/august/0802_hastert_irs.shtml
Post by T. R. Malthus
the Republicans
may float this idea before the election because it is a very popular
idea among a large segment of the electorate.
If they win in November, the idea will quietly disappear as it will
have served its purpose.
If they lose, the Republican controlled House may see some half-heated
debate on the subject but no real movement towards enacting a VAT (too
European) or eliminating the IRS will occur because, in the end, it is
not to either party's advantage for the current form of taxation to
end.
That's pretty much what I was trying to say in my subject line. It's an
idea that I think would change this country in many ways, most if not all
of them in a good way. So of course no politician would ever take the risk
beyond rhetoric. I was just reporting the news, since this is a newsgroup
when it's not being a daycare center.
--
"I do not believe John Kerry is fit to be Commander-in-Chief of the armed
forces of the United States. This is not a political issue. It is a matter
of his judgment, truthfulness, reliability, loyalty and trust -- all
absolute tenets of command. His biography, 'Tour of Duty,' by Douglas
Brinkley, is replete with gross exaggerations, distortions of fact,
contradictions and slanderous lies. His contempt for the military and
authority is evident by even a most casual review of this biography."Rear
Admiral Roy Hoffman, USN (retired)
Dave Simpson
2004-08-03 00:49:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim Alder
http://www.gopusa.com/news/2004/august/0802_hastert_irs.shtml
Note that these folks prefer a national (federal) retail sales tax.

Also, note it would be promised in a second term, not before
November.

Also, "to push for" is not the same as "to achieve." Do you
remember 1994 and term limits?


"Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert (R-IL) writes in a new book that
Congressional Republicans plan to push for the elimination of the
Internal Revenue Service during a Bush second term.

The Drudge Report revealed Sunday that Hastert's book, "Speaker:
Lessons From Forty Years of Coaching and Politics," discloses a plan
by President Bush and the GOP Congress to replace the burdensome
federal income tax with a national sales tax. ..."
Jim Alder
2004-08-03 03:19:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave Simpson
Post by Jim Alder
http://www.gopusa.com/news/2004/august/0802_hastert_irs.shtml
Note that these folks prefer a national (federal) retail sales tax.
Also, note it would be promised in a second term, not before
November.
Also, "to push for" is not the same as "to achieve."
I see. You want the Speaker of the House to promise to ACHIEVE a flat
tax?? Singlehandedly? And you call the Republicans 'nuts'??
Post by Dave Simpson
Do you remember 1994 and term limits?
Yes. Plus, _I_ remember 2000 and the promise of the flat tax then, too.
Do YOU remember my subject line?
Post by Dave Simpson
"Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert (R-IL) writes in a new book that
Congressional Republicans plan to push for the elimination of the
Internal Revenue Service during a Bush second term.
Lessons From Forty Years of Coaching and Politics," discloses a plan
by President Bush and the GOP Congress to replace the burdensome
federal income tax with a national sales tax. ..."
--
"I do not believe John Kerry is fit to be Commander-in-Chief of the armed
forces of the United States. This is not a political issue. It is a matter
of his judgment, truthfulness, reliability, loyalty and trust -- all
absolute tenets of command. His biography, 'Tour of Duty,' by Douglas
Brinkley, is replete with gross exaggerations, distortions of fact,
contradictions and slanderous lies. His contempt for the military and
authority is evident by even a most casual review of this biography."Rear
Admiral Roy Hoffman, USN (retired)
Grain of Sand
2004-08-03 19:02:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave Simpson
Post by Jim Alder
http://www.gopusa.com/news/2004/august/0802_hastert_irs.shtml
Note that these folks prefer a national (federal) retail sales tax.
I do not understand this though. If consumer spending is low because the
economy is bad people will need more assistance from society but it will
not be there when they need it. How is that good if that is a
possibility?

And who and how high is the consumption tax?
Post by Dave Simpson
Also, note it would be promised in a second term, not before
November.
Also, "to push for" is not the same as "to achieve." Do you
remember 1994 and term limits?
"Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert (R-IL) writes in a new book that
Congressional Republicans plan to push for the elimination of the
Internal Revenue Service during a Bush second term.
Lessons From Forty Years of Coaching and Politics," discloses a plan
by President Bush and the GOP Congress to replace the burdensome
federal income tax with a national sales tax. ..."
--
" Victory breeds hatred. The defeated live in pain. Happily
the peaceful live, giving up victory and defeat." - Dhammapada

http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/sbe10/
Dave Simpson
2004-08-03 00:34:42 UTC
Permalink
If you recall the quickly-corrupted so-called Republican "revolution"
after the 1994 elections (repudiation of HillaryCare as well as
Washington in general, and a willingness to flirt with returning to
truly legitimate constitutional federalism, which the Left abhors),
many reforms died or were watered-down; and there's more.

Specifically, there also is the typical bureaucratic trick not of
truly eliminating something but just transferring it to another
department of government.

In the case of taxes and the IRS, our monster-sized government in
Washington demands huge tax revenues (while spending all of them, and
more), and eliminating the IRS will amount to nothing but a gimmick --
there will still be taxes.

Elimination of the hated income tax is a good thing; ideally I'd like
to see a VAT instead. But let's not have our hopes raised
unrealistically high about the newest sop to "economic conservative"
voters. The only way such efforts should be taken seriously is if an
amendment to the Constitution were sought that repealed the authority
of Congress to tax incomes, at the time elimination of the income tax
or "the IRS" were proposed. A flat (single-rate) income tax is
superior to the current unjust, parasitic, perverse progressive-rate
scheme; I'd rather see pursuit of correction of the income tax that
stands a chance of success than be offered grand promises that are
unlikely to materialize or that frankly are dishonest.


Dave Simpson
Dave Simpson
2004-08-03 00:37:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim Alder
The Speaker of the House will push for replacing the nation's current tax
system with a national sales tax or a value added tax, Hill sources tell
DRUDGE.
Note that it's gimmickry also to vow to eliminate the IRS. Taxes
will continue to be levied and accounted for somehow.

Either of the two proposed alternatives are far better than the
income tax. I'd prefer the VAT over the retail sales tax. Note that
the proponents speak of both alternatives. It would be seen as a more
serious effort if they had chosen one or the other already and sought
that alternative alone. Don't they know what they want, and if not,
why not?


Dave Simpson
Jim Alder
2004-08-03 03:27:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave Simpson
Post by Jim Alder
The Speaker of the House will push for replacing the nation's current
tax system with a national sales tax or a value added tax, Hill
sources tell DRUDGE.
Note that it's gimmickry also to vow to eliminate the IRS. Taxes
will continue to be levied and accounted for somehow.
Either of the two proposed alternatives are far better than the
income tax. I'd prefer the VAT over the retail sales tax. Note that
the proponents speak of both alternatives. It would be seen as a more
serious effort if they had chosen one or the other already and sought
that alternative alone. Don't they know what they want, and if not,
why not?
There is a difference between what they want and what they can get. Take
you, for instance. First the idea was "nuts", then it just wouldn't get rid
of the IRS, and now you're for one of the ideas. How is Hastert supposed to
know what Congress is going to want after the election when you've had
three different ideas in one day?
--
"I do not believe John Kerry is fit to be Commander-in-Chief of the armed
forces of the United States. This is not a political issue. It is a matter
of his judgment, truthfulness, reliability, loyalty and trust -- all
absolute tenets of command. His biography, 'Tour of Duty,' by Douglas
Brinkley, is replete with gross exaggerations, distortions of fact,
contradictions and slanderous lies. His contempt for the military and
authority is evident by even a most casual review of this biography."Rear
Admiral Roy Hoffman, USN (retired)
Roger
2004-08-03 02:13:48 UTC
Permalink
This article was STOLEN, without credit, from
http://www.drudgereport.com/rnc.htm.

No need to ask why he didn't give Drudge credit.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Drudge

The Report has not always been so prescient, however. Shortly before the
announcement that John Kerry had selected John Edwards as his running mate
in July 2004, the Report claimed that former first lady Hillary Clinton had
been selected. Whereas the New York Post was castigated for incorrectly
reporting that Kerry chose as his running mate U. S. Representative Richard
Gephardt, the Report escaped criticism. The Report was also a source of more
sensational rumors about the presidential candidate, alleging, in February
2004, that John Kerry had an affair with a young intern named Alexandra
Polier. The woman, who in fact was never an intern for Kerry, denied the
claim, and the rumor has now been thoroughly repudiated. It was this latter
story that led the London News Review to call the Drudge Report "notoriously
unreliable."

Despite its record of unreliability, the Drudge Report profits from the
nature of its electronic medium. Because the Drudge Report is published
electronically, and not in print, such inaccuracies and errors are often
forgotten.
Post by Jim Alder
REPUBLICANS PLAN PUSH FOR ELIMINATION OF IRS
A domestic centerpiece of the Bush/GOP agenda for a second Bush term is
getting rid of the Internal Revenue Service, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.
The Speaker of the House will push for replacing the nation's current tax
system with a national sales tax or a value added tax, Hill sources tell
DRUDGE.
"People ask me if I’m really calling for the elimination of the IRS, and I
say I think that’s a great thing to do for future generations of
Americans," Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert explains in his new book,
to be released on Wednesday.
"Pushing reform legislation will be difficult. Change of any sort seldom
comes easy. But these changes are critical to our economic vitality and our
economic security abroad," Hastert declares in SPEAKER: LESSONS FROM FORTY
YEARS IN COACHING AND POLITICS.
"“If you own property, stock, or, say, one hundred acres of farmland and
tax time is approaching, you don’t want to make a mistake, so you’re almost
obliged to go to a certified public accountant, tax preparer, or tax
attorney to help you file a correct return. That costs a lot of money. Now
multiply the amount you have to pay by the total number of people who are
in the same boat. You can’t. No one can because precise numbers don’t
exist. But we can stipulate that we’re talking about a huge amount. Now
consider that a flat tax, national sales tax, or VAT would not only
eliminate the need to do this, it could also eliminate the Internal Revenue
Service (IRS) itself and make the process of paying taxes much easier."
"By adopting a VAT, sales tax, or some other alternative, we could begin to
change productivity. If you can do that, you can change gross national
product and start growing the economy. You could double the economy over
the next fifteen years. All of a sudden, the problem of what future
generations owe in Social Security and Medicare won’t be so daunting
anymore. The answer is to grow the economy, and the key to doing that is
making sure we have a tax system that attracts capital and builds
incentives to keep it here instead of forcing it out to other nations."
Jim Alder
2004-08-03 03:29:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roger
This article was STOLEN, without credit, from
http://www.drudgereport.com/rnc.htm.
No need to ask why he didn't give Drudge credit.
First sentence, Roger: "A domestic centerpiece of the Bush/GOP agenda
for a second Bush term is getting rid of the Internal Revenue Service, the
DRUDGE REPORT has learned."

Whatsamatter, Roger? Did I hurt your feelings in that other thread?

Get over it.
Post by Roger
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Drudge
The Report has not always been so prescient, however. Shortly before
the announcement that John Kerry had selected John Edwards as his
running mate in July 2004, the Report claimed that former first lady
Hillary Clinton had been selected. Whereas the New York Post was
castigated for incorrectly reporting that Kerry chose as his running
mate U. S. Representative Richard Gephardt, the Report escaped
criticism. The Report was also a source of more sensational rumors
about the presidential candidate, alleging, in February 2004, that John
Kerry had an affair with a young intern named Alexandra Polier. The
woman, who in fact was never an intern for Kerry, denied the claim, and
the rumor has now been thoroughly repudiated. It was this latter story
that led the London News Review to call the Drudge Report "notoriously
unreliable."
Despite its record of unreliability, the Drudge Report profits from the
nature of its electronic medium. Because the Drudge Report is published
electronically, and not in print, such inaccuracies and errors are
often forgotten.
Post by Jim Alder
REPUBLICANS PLAN PUSH FOR ELIMINATION OF IRS
A domestic centerpiece of the Bush/GOP agenda for a second Bush term
is getting rid of the Internal Revenue Service, the DRUDGE REPORT has
learned.
Post by Jim Alder
The Speaker of the House will push for replacing the nation's current
tax system with a national sales tax or a value added tax, Hill
sources tell DRUDGE.
"People ask me if I’m really calling for the elimination of the IRS,
and I say I think that’s a great thing to do for future generations of
Americans," Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert explains in his new
book, to be released on Wednesday.
"Pushing reform legislation will be difficult. Change of any sort
seldom comes easy. But these changes are critical to our economic
vitality and
our
Post by Jim Alder
economic security abroad," Hastert declares in SPEAKER: LESSONS FROM
FORTY YEARS IN COACHING AND POLITICS.
"“If you own property, stock, or, say, one hundred acres of farmland
and tax time is approaching, you don’t want to make a mistake, so
you’re
almost
Post by Jim Alder
obliged to go to a certified public accountant, tax preparer, or tax
attorney to help you file a correct return. That costs a lot of money.
Now multiply the amount you have to pay by the total number of people
who are in the same boat. You can’t. No one can because precise
numbers don’t exist. But we can stipulate that we’re talking about a
huge amount. Now consider that a flat tax, national sales tax, or VAT
would not only eliminate the need to do this, it could also eliminate
the Internal
Revenue
Post by Jim Alder
Service (IRS) itself and make the process of paying taxes much easier."
"By adopting a VAT, sales tax, or some other alternative, we could
begin
to
Post by Jim Alder
change productivity. If you can do that, you can change gross national
product and start growing the economy. You could double the economy
over the next fifteen years. All of a sudden, the problem of what
future generations owe in Social Security and Medicare won’t be so
daunting anymore. The answer is to grow the economy, and the key to
doing that is making sure we have a tax system that attracts capital
and builds incentives to keep it here instead of forcing it out to
other nations."
--
"I do not believe John Kerry is fit to be Commander-in-Chief of the armed
forces of the United States. This is not a political issue. It is a matter
of his judgment, truthfulness, reliability, loyalty and trust -- all
absolute tenets of command. His biography, 'Tour of Duty,' by Douglas
Brinkley, is replete with gross exaggerations, distortions of fact,
contradictions and slanderous lies. His contempt for the military and
authority is evident by even a most casual review of this biography."Rear
Admiral Roy Hoffman, USN (retired)
Who Me?
2004-08-03 04:13:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim Alder
REPUBLICANS PLAN PUSH FOR ELIMINATION OF IRS
Thing is, this would be the reason they would use to push for the all
electronic economy, since they'd want to be able to oversee any
meaningful transaction directly rather than trust anyone to send it in.
This opens up things for national ID / credit/ debit cards, banning
cash transactions over some limit like $100 and generally increasing the
lack of privacy in the monetary system. Be very afraid.
Jim Alder
2004-08-03 05:40:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Who Me?
Post by Jim Alder
REPUBLICANS PLAN PUSH FOR ELIMINATION OF IRS
Thing is, this would be the reason they would use to push for the all
electronic economy, since they'd want to be able to oversee any
meaningful transaction directly rather than trust anyone to send it in.
This opens up things for national ID / credit/ debit cards, banning
cash transactions over some limit like $100 and generally increasing the
lack of privacy in the monetary system. Be very afraid.
Yeah. Run for your lives. Yawn.
--
"I do not believe John Kerry is fit to be Commander-in-Chief of the armed
forces of the United States. This is not a political issue. It is a matter
of his judgment, truthfulness, reliability, loyalty and trust -- all
absolute tenets of command. His biography, 'Tour of Duty,' by Douglas
Brinkley, is replete with gross exaggerations, distortions of fact,
contradictions and slanderous lies. His contempt for the military and
authority is evident by even a most casual review of this biography."Rear
Admiral Roy Hoffman, USN (retired)
BC
2004-08-04 00:53:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim Alder
Post by Who Me?
Post by Jim Alder
REPUBLICANS PLAN PUSH FOR ELIMINATION OF IRS
Thing is, this would be the reason they would use to push for the all
electronic economy, since they'd want to be able to oversee any
meaningful transaction directly rather than trust anyone to send it in.
This opens up things for national ID / credit/ debit cards, banning
cash transactions over some limit like $100 and generally increasing the
lack of privacy in the monetary system. Be very afraid.
Yeah. Run for your lives. Yawn.
A federal consumption tax, properly targeted, would pretty
much eliminate the IRS and tax cheaters, and be able to be
sensibly graduated on the sly. But something like this
would be totally beyond the capabilities of the current
crop of Republicans leaders to implement in a non-idiotic
way.

-BC

"Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid
people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill
Raven Cecil
2004-08-10 08:09:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim Alder
--
"I do not believe John Kerry is fit to be Commander-in-Chief of the armed
forces of the United States. This is not a political issue. It is a matter
of his judgment, truthfulness, reliability, loyalty and trust -- all
absolute tenets of command. His biography, 'Tour of Duty,' by Douglas
Brinkley, is replete with gross exaggerations, distortions of fact,
contradictions and slanderous lies. His contempt for the military and
authority is evident by even a most casual review of this biography."Rear
Admiral Roy Hoffman, USN (retired)
FACT: "Captain Roy Hoffman" was Admiral Zumwalt's "trusty aide."
FACT: Zumwalt Awarded Kerry the Silver Star & the Bronze Star

This is what Zumwalt said about Kerry: "KERRY's calmness,
professionalism and great personal courage under fire were in
keeping with the highest traditions of the United States Naval
Service." [Kerry Bronze Star Citation]

Roy Hoffman said, "John Kerry has not been honest."
FACT: Roy Hoffman was NOT a crew mate of John Kerry's.

"Hoffman acknowledged he had no first-hand knowledge to discredit
Kerry's claims to valor and said that although Kerry was under
his command, he really didn't know Kerry much personally."
[Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 5/7/04]


/Hoffman Described by Fellow Vets as "Hotheaded", "Bloodthirsty"
and "Ego-maniacal"/:

"Interviews with various Swift boat veterans turned up
descriptions of Hoffman as 'hotheaded,' 'bloodthirsty,' and
'ego-maniacal'." [Tour of Duty, Brinkley, 2004, p. 105]


/Former Senator Bob Kerrey Described Roy Hoffman as "The Classic
Body Count Guy"/:

Hoffman was a cigar-chomping officer who brandished an M-16
assault rifle and wore a revolver when he visited troops in the
field. "He was the classic body-count guy," Kerrey says. "Bunkers
destroyed, hooches destroyed, sort of scorekeeper." [New York
Times Magazine, 4/29/01]


/Hoffman Thought His Rules of Engagement in Vietnam Were "Too
Restrictive"/:

In the summer of 1968, Hoffman complained to his superiors in
Pearl Harbor that the prevailing rules of engagement were too
constrictive. "This was war," Hoffman said in an interview last
month. "This wasn't Sunday school." He made what he said was a
pro forma request for looser rules, which was granted.
Previously, Hoffman said, military personnel had not been
permitted to fire unless they were fired upon. Under the new
rules, he said, they could attack if they felt threatened. "I
told them you not only have authority, I damned well expect
action," Hoffman recalled. "If there were men there and they
didn't kill them or capture them, you'd hear from me." [New York
Times Magazine, 4/29/01]
--
Warm Regards,

Raven Cecil

"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing
invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them
under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their
duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new
Guards for their future security." - Thomas Jefferson

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to
keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect them-
selves against tyranny in government." - Thomas Jefferson

Vote Smart!
http://www.vote-smart.org/
Jim Alder
2004-08-10 15:37:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Raven Cecil
Post by Jim Alder
--
"I do not believe John Kerry is fit to be Commander-in-Chief of the
armed forces of the United States. This is not a political issue. It
is a matter of his judgment, truthfulness, reliability, loyalty and
trust -- all absolute tenets of command. His biography, 'Tour of
Duty,' by Douglas Brinkley, is replete with gross exaggerations,
distortions of fact, contradictions and slanderous lies. His contempt
for the military and authority is evident by even a most casual review
of this biography."Rear Admiral Roy Hoffman, USN (retired)
Cripes! Another guy who'd rather talk about my tagline.
Post by Raven Cecil
FACT: "Captain Roy Hoffman" was Admiral Zumwalt's "trusty aide."
FACT: Zumwalt Awarded Kerry the Silver Star & the Bronze Star
This is what Zumwalt said about Kerry: "KERRY's calmness,
professionalism and great personal courage under fire were in
keeping with the highest traditions of the United States Naval
Service." [Kerry Bronze Star Citation]
Roy Hoffman said, "John Kerry has not been honest."
FACT: Roy Hoffman was NOT a crew mate of John Kerry's.
"Hoffman acknowledged he had no first-hand knowledge to discredit
Kerry's claims to valor and said that although Kerry was under
his command, he really didn't know Kerry much personally."
[Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 5/7/04]
"His contempt for the military and authority is evident by even a most
casual review of this biography." That's not too hard to understand, is it?
Post by Raven Cecil
/Hoffman Described by Fellow Vets as "Hotheaded", "Bloodthirsty"
"Interviews with various Swift boat veterans turned up
descriptions of Hoffman as 'hotheaded,' 'bloodthirsty,' and
'ego-maniacal'." [Tour of Duty, Brinkley, 2004, p. 105]
Really? In a war? That must have been inconvenient. Were they on his
crew? Were they on his boat?
Post by Raven Cecil
/Former Senator Bob Kerrey Described Roy Hoffman as "The Classic
Hoffman was a cigar-chomping officer who brandished an M-16
assault rifle and wore a revolver when he visited troops in the
field. "He was the classic body-count guy," Kerrey says. "Bunkers
destroyed, hooches destroyed, sort of scorekeeper." [New York
Times Magazine, 4/29/01]
Wow! So he was killing people and destroying things? That bastard! Wait
until Kerry gets there with his 'sensitive, thoughtful war on terror'!
HE'LL show them.
Post by Raven Cecil
/Hoffman Thought His Rules of Engagement in Vietnam Were "Too
A lot of people thought that. It's why we lost the war.
Post by Raven Cecil
In the summer of 1968, Hoffman complained to his superiors in
Pearl Harbor that the prevailing rules of engagement were too
constrictive. "This was war," Hoffman said in an interview last
month. "This wasn't Sunday school." He made what he said was a
pro forma request for looser rules, which was granted.
Hmmm, so his superiors agreed with him!
Post by Raven Cecil
Previously, Hoffman said, military personnel had not been
permitted to fire unless they were fired upon. Under the new
rules, he said, they could attack if they felt threatened. "I
told them you not only have authority, I damned well expect
action," Hoffman recalled. "If there were men there and they
didn't kill them or capture them, you'd hear from me." [New York
Times Magazine, 4/29/01]
Welcome to war, bubba. This is the lamest attempt at character
assassination I've seen in some time.
--
"I believe I can fight a more effective, more thoughtful, more
strategic, more proactive, more sensitive war on terror that reaches
out to other nations and brings them to our side and lives up to
American values in history." John Kerry at the Unity 2004 Journalists
of Color conference.
Fact Checker
2004-08-13 16:33:05 UTC
Permalink
Wait until Kerry gets there with his 'sensitive, thoughtful war
on terror'! HE'LL show them.
Funny you would mention that word, /sensitive/, because Bush said
exactly the same thing!

"Precisely because America is powerful, we must be more sensitive
about expressing our power and influence. Our goal is to
patiently build the momentum of freedom, not create resentment
for America itself." - George W. Bush
[source: http://www.reagan.navy.mil/bush_speech.htm]

Oops! I guess Bush forgot that part about "not creating
resentment for America itself!"
--
Warm Regards,

Raven Cecil

"Tribal sovereignty means that; it’s sovereign. I mean,
you're a — you've been given sovereignty, and you're
viewed as a sovereign entity. And therefore the relationship
between the federal government and tribes is one between
sovereign entities." - George W. Bush

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you
think it means." - Inigo Montoya, The Princess Bride

"CORPORATION, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual
profit without individual responsibility." - Ambrose Bierce

The Modern Newspeak Dictionary:
http://www.newspeakdictionary.com/
"It's DoublePlusGood!"
Jim Alder
2004-08-13 22:37:42 UTC
Permalink
Wait until Kerry gets there with his 'sensitive, thoughtful war
on terror'! HE'LL show them.
Funny you would mention that word, "sensitive", because Bush said
exactly the same thing!
Exactly the same WORD, you mean? What did you do, search the speeches
for the word 'sensitive' and forget it's an adjective that Kerry applied to
"war"?
"Precisely because America is powerful, we must be more sensitive
about expressing our power and influence. Our goal is to
patiently build the momentum of freedom, not create resentment
for America itself." - George W. Bush
[source: http://www.reagan.navy.mil/bush_speech.htm]
Oops! I guess Bush forgot that part about "not creating
resentment for America itself!"
Oops. I guess YOU forgot that what Kerry said was a thoughtful,
sensitive war on terrorism! Or maybe you didn't hear it amid all the
laughter? Hell, even Leno got a kick out of THAT one.
--
"I believe I can fight a more effective, more thoughtful, more
strategic, more proactive, more sensitive war on terror that reaches
out to other nations and brings them to our side and lives up to
American values in history." John Kerry at the Unity 2004 Journalists
of Color conference.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...