So what do the Liberals do now that Saddam is captured?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Maverick74, Dec 14, 2003.

  1. Maverick74


    Increasing The California Income Tax Is A Job-Killer • 80% of California business taxpayers pay income taxes under the personal income tax law. In 1999, that was approximately 2.2 million returns, compared to 325,000 bank and corporation returns.

    Half of business income taxes are paid through the personal income tax. For 1999, that amounted to $7.7 billion to the general fund. • Small businesses are the backbone of the California economy. Yet increasing top income tax rates would increase the income taxes for some small, profitable un-incorporated business paying personal income taxes. Logic would suggest that California would foster and encourage small business to grow and create jobs here – not hammer these businesses with new taxes and push them to either not expand at all or expand in some other state. Makes California’s Tax Structure More Volatile

    • Policy-makers have repeatedly blamed California’s current fiscal crisis on the state’s heavy reliance on income tax revenues. The state’s revenue stream follows the boom-and-bust business cycle because of dependence on income taxes. While the current budget deficit problem results from over spending and a lack of financial management and oversight, the revenue volatility issue is made greater by raising income taxes.

    Can’t Pay Higher Income Taxes Than In California

    California currently has the most progressive income tax in the nation, even more progressive than the federal income tax. High-income taxpayers pay more taxes in California than in any other state in the nation. In fact, less than 10% of the nearly 13 million PIT returns filed account for nearly 75% of the PIT revenues. Chasing Away Some Higher-Income Residents

    • At the current 9.3% top rate, California already has a reputation for confiscatory taxation of upper-income levels. California would have the highest effective tax rate in the nation (considering that some states allow federal income taxes to be deducted from state income taxes).

    Corporate leaders who make decisions on where to locate businesses must look at the personal income tax to see how managers will be taxed in California. The tax structure will affect companies’ ability to move managers into the state.

    • It is interesting to note that some highly paid athletes choose to live in states without income taxes and avoid California. Numerous golfers have chosen Florida residency, including Mark O’Meara and David Duval. Tiger Woods moved to Florida after attending Stanford University. Kristi Yamaguchi, who grew up in Fremont and has family in the Bay Area, is a resident of Reno, Nevada. Alex Rodriguez, the highest-paid player in baseball, moved from the Seattle Mariners, in a state with no income tax, and signed with the Texas Rangers, another state without a PIT. It has been reported that a factor in his selection of the Rangers over a California-based team was California’s PIT structure. Anticipated Revenue Doesn’t Materialize

    • In 1991, when the 10% and 11% brackets were enacted on a temporary basis, they were expected to yield $1.2 billion in revenue per year. A Franchise Tax Board analysis shows that actual collections were almost 50%

    less than that over the next several years. This initiative may not produce the $700 million a year expected in the static analysis.

    • A study by the National Bureau of Economic Research, analyzing 1993 federal tax increases on upper-income taxpayers, found a similar result. Two new brackets for those with incomes over $140,000 produced less than half the revenue anticipated in the static analysis. Other Considerations

    • High state tax rates make it more difficult for small businesses to obtain capital, to expand operations, and employ more workers. Moreover, California businesses are already reeling from massive increases in costs of operations due to rising expenses for workers’ compensation and unemployment insurance, energy, environmental regulations, a plaintiff-oriented civil tort system, and other costs.
    #31     Dec 14, 2003
  2. Maverick74


    California - Leader in Socialist Trends

    California is one of the most restrictive states in the Union in terms of personal freedoms, thanks in large part to an over-abundance of leftist activist organizations and a legislature that leans far to the left of the general population. The state's current energy woes provide one striking example of the consequences of marxist policies - they are a direct result of the influence of extremist environmental organizations and government meddling.

    Voter-approved propositions in California are routinely struck down by the liberal courts, who have appointed themselves guardians of the public good - knowing as they do that the people are far too stupid to vote correctly on important social issues.

    The benevolent hand of Big Brother guides virtually every aspect of daily life in California. Last year the Sacramento Bee reported that a whopping 1,054 new laws were to take effect in California, courtesy of Gov. Gray Davis and his socialist buddies in the legislature. "Like a Santa Claus for civics teachers, Gov. Gray Davis signed -- or allowed to become law -- a mountain of 1,054 bills sent to him by the state Legislature," the Bee reported.

    Thus have the citizens of California been relieved of the bothersome task of thinking for themselves.

    But, not satisfied to watch you as you go about your daily routine, Socialist California wants to peer into your home life, and what better way than to accomplish that than to interrogate your kids?

    A bill that passed the Assembly last year, AB2068, requires the screening of children for their "development history." This bill establishes criteria in which physicians are REQUIRED to inquire of KINDERGARTNERS the following:

    Do the parents or other family members have substance abuse problems? It does not specify what kind of substance abuse (tobacco, caffeine, alcohol, aspertaine, ritalin, prozac, aspirin).
    Are the parents employed?
    Is there stress in the family?
    What kind of child care arrangements are the parents taking?
    Are any family members involved in a gang?
    Are any of the neighbors involved in a gang?
    Do the parents spank their children?
    Do the parents watch violent television shows?
    Do the parents keep guns in the house?
    Do the neighbors keep guns in their houses? Are the children required to inspect neighbor's homes for firearm ownership?
    After this invasive "screening", physicians are apparently required to refer these families to the appropriate authorities for "treatment". At least the re-education camps will be located in a warm climate.

    Assemblyman Tom McClintock noted, "History offers us too many examples of what happens, sometimes very rapidly, when children are used by the state to report on any suspicious activities of their families or neighbors."

    Can you say "Orwellian"? Give it a try.

    Two of the most fundamental human rights, rights granted by God and affirmed as such by the Founders, are the right to defend one's own life, family and property and the right to raise one's own child and to guide the instruction of that child. These Natural Rights are inconsistent with totalitarian goals, of course, and meet with powerful opposition in California.

    Two of the most basic tenets of socialism are the indoctrination of children through government-run schools and the disarming of the population.

    It's no surprise, then, that California does not like home-schooling (Although there are worse places for home-schoolers). California State law requires that a home-schooling family must qualify as a private school, and that the parent or person doing the teaching must be "capable of teaching", vague wording that leads to liberal interpretation by individual school districts.

    Attorney Will Rogers represented "The Berkley Four" in a recent case in which the Berkeley Unified School District attempted (unsuccessfully) to criminally prosecute four home-schooling families for truancy. Rogers reminded California of the respective roles of state and family this way:

    "Home-schooling parents embrace a truth which is self-evident: a parent has an inalienable right to direct the education of his or her child. This right is inherent in the principles of liberty, privacy and the pursuit of happiness."

    "The fundamental right of a parent to direct the education of his or her child is older than the United States Constitution; it is older than history," he said. "It is so deeply woven into the fabric of what constitutes a family that to deny this right is to do violence to the sacred bonds which unite a loving mother and father to their beloved child."

    California Homeschool Network publications chairman and trustee-elect Cathy Cuthbert was even more blunt in her observations of the role of The State:

    "In the Soviet Union, everything that wasn't expressly allowed was denied. I thought we had a different system of jurisprudence here."

    And on the issue of self-defense - Californians have faced more than a decade of ever-increasing, constantly changing and draconian gun laws. Laws piled upon laws, restrictions upon restrictions, have lead to widespread confusion and growing resentment among law-abiding gun owners.

    California law required that those who own "semi-automatic" firearms must register them by December 31st, 2000. In addition, anyone who owned a semi-automatic rifle, handgun or shotgun with certain vaguely defined cosmetic features was required to destroy it, disable it, drastically modify it or turn it in to the police by that date.

    The California Department of Justice estimates that the number of firearms falling into those categories numbers in the hundreds of thousands, yet only a little over 10,000 were actually registered by the deadline. Whether through confusion or deliberate and massive civil disobedience, or both, thousands of law-abiding California citizens have been made into criminals.

    Then there is reengineering of society through legislation - redefining "gender", the introduction of pro-homosexual curriculum in public schools, the abolishing of 1st amendment rights on university campuses - the list is endless.

    Traditionally, California has been looked to as the leader in national trends. But now we must look to California with trepidation and heed the warnings while we can still see them - before the blackouts roll across the nation and the darkness spreads.
    #32     Dec 14, 2003
  3. Maverick74


    Hey Mike, It's really hard for liberals to make arguements when they get beat upside the head with facts isn't it? LOL. Now what were you saying about California? LOL.
    #33     Dec 14, 2003
  4. Look at this. nolan-vinny-sam changed to wiggle-waffle in the same thread! And continued the same argument that was started by a different alias!! Talk about trying to conceal your identity!

    What a coincidence that both wiggle-waggle and NVS are both proud to announce they are registered republicans. And in the same thread no less.

    Me thinks wiggle-waggle = nolan-vinny-sam = one disturbed whacko.

    Hmm San Fran bay area...I think you need to get yourself a real man. That would take the starch out of you. Happy hunting!
    #34     Dec 14, 2003
  5. Forget about this fruitcake/saddam sympathizer. He is one disturbed dude. Makes walter look normal.

    Every time he loses an argument (and its often), he falls back on the persons big ego. same old, same old...

    Be careful with this whacko, he is a strong candidate to go postal.
    #35     Dec 14, 2003
  6. Maverick74


    I have never met a guy that was in such denial that he is a bleeding heart liberal. This Michael guy is trying so hard to be perceived as a republican but it's just not flying with anybody. I guess he is going to tell me now that his great aunt betsie is a registered republican.

    Hey Waggie, did you know that Howard Dean's parents are republicans? LOL. I guess that means Dean isn't a liberal right? WRONG!!!!!!!! LOL.
    #36     Dec 14, 2003
  7. According to the bio of the author of the following piece, the author is:

    a member of the NRA, the Home School Legal Defense Association, the Heritage Foundation, and Judicial Watch.

    Let me guess, he is also a born again Christian and chews tobacco, has a gun rack in his Ford, and has a pitbull.


    Always good to know the background of those whose opinions are being quoted in the Forum...this particular extremist is a preacher for the Tocque society, a modern day John Birch society.

    Info on Tocqueism found here: Some scary right wing extremist shit.

    Now we know where MavMan gets many of his "thoughts" and his hatred of those who have different opinions.

    #37     Dec 15, 2003
  8. Maverick74


    Hey ART,

    Here is a revolutionary thought, why not respond to the ideas of that article rather then attack the writer? Cool concept huh? I posted that article because in a nutshell it summed up what I was saying about California being a socialist state. In fairness of full disclosure I have no idea who this guy is, however, having said that, he is dead on with his article.

    Now let me get this straight ART, just because he is a member of the NRA, the Heritage Foundation, and Judicial Watch and drives a Ford and chews tobacco he is an extremist? HAHAHAHAHA. OK man, you are like the biggest f*cking bigot I have ever met. Talk about judging people. You take the cake my friend. Tell me, what other qualities do you judge people by? Skin color perhaps? religion? ethnic group? At least when I attack liberals its based on their ideas and their policies, not by what kind of car they drive, or what they chew. Are you also a racist? anti-semite? Come on admit it man, come clean. So if I tell you what kind of car I drive, you know everything about me? LOL. You are a real joke.
    #38     Dec 15, 2003
  9. Your emotionalism is engaged, typical.

    Among many variables used to determine where people are coming from, as underlying motive is everything in my book, I evaluate people by the company they keep, the organizations they belong to, etc. When I see homogeneity of thought of an extremist nature, highlighted by quoting a leading member of a fringe element organization who needs to spit off from the mainstream body politic, I see the same degree of fanaticism that led to 9.11.2001.

    The author's piece was full of opinions and unsupported claims, not fact, the same type of opinions I heard 35 years ago by the "silent majority" as we fought for the rights of minorities, drafted teenagers shipped to Vietnam, and women who wanted to be treated equally.

    In the words of Grace Slick:

    "Feed Your Head."

    Repeat after me:

    God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change.

    The courage to change the things I can.

    And the wisdom to know the difference.

    #39     Dec 15, 2003
  10. Maverick74


    OK ART, do me this one favor to prove your point. Point out one statement that he made about CA that you disagree with either because it is false or because you believe it is an extreme opinion. It's easy to throw shit against the wall and see if it sticks, so rather then make a blanket statement that he is an extremist just because he disagrees with your thoughts, why don't you point out one thing that he said and who knows maybe I'll agree with you. If you don't do that your shouting at the rain.

    BTW, I still can't believe you made that wisecrack about pickup trucks and gun racks and tobacco. I'm assuming that was a joke but I don't know anymore on these threads. We have some weird people out there.
    #40     Dec 15, 2003