isnt the concept of "malicious" a modern illusion? is there maliciousness in he animal kingdom? survival means getting yours , and freaking the rest. right? do you see a lion making value judgements?? he takes. he survives.
The only thing that I agree with you on is the part about politicians pretending they are actually doing something. The republicans are not doing any more to help the working class than the Democrats are to hurt it or vise versa. The package is just more smoke and mirrors to keep the politicians looking busy. I would like to pay less taxes, no question about it. But eliminating all import Tariffs would lower my indirect tax more. Stopping these ridiculous farm subsidies would lower my food costs more. Fixing social security by investing the money publicly would lower taxes more. Imagine if we just had a national sales tax how simple things would be. Oh, I know it doesn't make for a pretty sound bite, but it sure would make things a lot simpler.
It seems like the Senat is hell bent on NOT reducing cap gains. I just wish there were some real republican senators in congress. Sigh.
It's not really fair to blame all Republican senators when it is only two or three that are fouling it up for everyone else. The way things are is that they have pretty safe seats, there is not much the Senate leaders or President can do except beg them, and there is always the implicit threat that if they are pushed too hard, they can do the Jeffords backstab traitor move. Of course, the Democrats are marching in lockstep, with the exception mayb eof Zell Miller, against the interests of working americans and in favor of more government waste. To me, this is a good example of why the quaint notion of voting for the "best" candidate, rather than the party is a bad idea. If the republicans had 60+ seats, none of this would matter. We would be looking at 10 or 15% cap gains rate and a 28% top rate.
not quite...check out japan where you get to pay $3 for an apple...but i would like to see lower subsidies on farms, simply because i don't think it's fair that fat people should get preferential tax treatment... but stopping subsidies for airlines and other failed business models would do amazing things for the economy...
According to the World Bank, Japan's weighted average tariff rate in 2000 (the most recent year for which World Bank data are available) was 2 percent. Non-tariff barriers take the form of non-transparent regulations, discriminatory standards, and exclusionary business practices. The Economist Intelligence Unit reports that Japan maintains import restrictions for wheat and rice flours; certain agricultural and meat products; endangered species and products such as ivory, animal parts, and certain furs; swords and firearms; and more-than-two-month supplies of medicines and cosmetics for personal use. Japan, while it does have low tarriffs however, it also DOES have tarriffs. It is just a fact that subsidies in any form is equivilant to taking money from the population as a whole and handing it over to a small minority. Whether it is HUD, welfare, farm aid, dairy farmers etc...It is just another form of extortion. There is a bill in the House that would require Congress to attach the section of the Constitution that validates the spending in that bill. Of course this will never pass because both parties feel relevant by spending money. Please tell me where in the Constitution farm subsidies are authorized?
Gladly. That would be in the invisible ink clause, first discovered by FDR, expanded on by the Warren Court, expanded greatly in roe v. Wade, and defended by Chuck Schumer, Patrick Leahy and other Dem's filibustering Bush nominees. In fact, use of the filibuster to prevent the constitutionally mandated "advise and consent" is also authorized by the invisible ink clause. Hope that helps.
Here are a few interesting links. Doing a Key Word search for "Income Tax Reform" can bring some interesting albeit disturbing reading. Some of it needs to be taken with a grain of salt as there is the chance that the writer has a hidden agenda. But if you read enough you realize there are quite a few piggies spending our cash. http://www.cato.org/research/articles/ce082301.html http://www.ipi.org/ipi/IPIPublicati...okupFullText/A9A7AA39F78128BB86256AB700627702 http://www.washingtonpolicycenter.org/GovtRegulations/PNStickerShock99-14.html http://www.free-market.net/spotlight/taxreform/
The old invisible ink clause. I forgot about that one. :eek: Yeah I agree with you that FDR is the one who seems to have discovered it. But then practically every other elected politician has practiced it since then. I honestly thought that in the mid 90's the republicans would be ones to restraint spending but that lasted every bit of 12 months and then the spending took off again. That is why I think term limits on Congressmen is a great idea. Most seem to want to do the right thing the first time they are elected but while they are there for a while all they want is to get reelected. I do find it really funny though that the democrats are bitching about the deficit. Who honestly believes that they will actually balance the budget if they take control of all three branches of the govt. That is why I probably will be voting for the Libertarian candidate for president next time.
It was balanced/surplused when Clinton left, but then again, your denial is generally more powerful in your mind than the facts, so I'm probably wasting my time here... ...and which party wanted an amendment to the consitution to balance the federal budget?