bin Laden probably could have been iced during Clinton's admin. BUT - AFTER 9/11 - no one was going to argue that we were illegally invading a sovereign nation. We went to all-out war. AND STILL HE GETS AWAY - WHEN WE HAVE FREE REIGN TO STOMP ALL OVER AFGHANISTAN TO GET HIM!! How'd THAT happen...?
I don't see why. Income taxes are taxes, and have been around for a long, long time. Well then you're at odds with the founding fathers and their philosophy for the country. "Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1785. "Taxes on consumption, like those on capital or income, to be just, must be uniform." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Smith, 1823.
No, Pabst, no. You'd have to ignore his other writings and take that right out of context. It was in reference to whiskey taxes being uniform with other spirits. Ie. the uniform across the same product. It has nothing to do with flat taxes, which Jefferson opposed. It's amazing how many people (usually "patriots") are in direct opposition to what the country was founded on such as graduated taxes, helping the poor, public schools, libraries and other services, etc. Here's the letter if you don't believe me that the quote was about whiskey: To General Samuel Smith. Monticello, May 3, 1823. Dear General I duly received your favor of the 24th ultimo. But I am rendered a slow correspondent by the loss of the use, totally of the one, and almost totally of the other wrist, which renders writing scarcely and painfully practicable. I learn with great satisfaction that wholesome economies have been found, sufficient to relieve us from the ruinous necessity of adding annually to our debt by new loans. The deviser of so salutary a relief deserves truly well of his country. I shall be glad, too, if an additional tax of one-fourth of a dollar a gallon on whiskey shall enable us to meet all our engagements with punctuality. Viewing that tax as an article in a system of excise, I was once glad to see it fall with the rest of the system, which I considered as prematurely and unnecessarily introduced. It was evident that our existing taxes were then equal to our existing debts. It was clearly foreseen also that the surplus from excise would only become aliment for useless offices, and would be swallowed in idleness by those whom it would withdraw from useful industry. Considering it only as a fiscal measure, this was right. But the prostration of body and mind which the cheapness of this liquor is spreading through the mass of our citizens, now calls the attention of the legislator on a very different principle. One of his important duties is as guardian of those who from causes susceptible of precise definition, cannot take care of themselves. Such are infants, maniacs, gamblers, drunkards. The last, as much as the maniac, requires restrictive measures to save him from the fatal infatuation under which he is destroying his health, his morals, his family, and his usefulness to society. One powerful obstacle to his ruinous self-indulgence would be a price beyond his competence. As a sanatory measure, therefore, it becomes one of duty in the public guardians. Yet I do not think it follows necessarily that imported spirits should be subjected to similar enhancement, until they become as cheap as those made at home. A tax on whiskey is to discourage its consumption; a tax on foreign spirits encourages whiskey by removing its rival from competition. The price and present duty throw foreign spirits already out of competition with whiskey, and accordingly they are used but to a salutary extent. You see no persons besotting themselves with imported spirits, wines, liquors, cordials, etc. Whiskey claims to itself alone the exclusive office of sot-making. Foreign spirits, wines, teas, coffee, segars, salt, are articles of as innocent consumption as broadcloths and silks; and ought, like them, to pay but the average ad valorem duty of other imported comforts. All of them are ingredients in our happiness, and the government which steps out of the ranks of the ordinary articles of consumption to select and lay under disproportionate burdens a particular one, because it is a comfort, pleasing to the taste, or necessary to health, and will therefore be bought, is, in that particular, a tyranny. Taxes on consumption like those on capital or income, to be just, must be uniform. I do not mean to say that it may not be for the general interest to foster for awhile certain infant manufactures, until they are strong enough to stand against foreign rivals ; but when evident that they will never be so, it is against right, to make the other branches of industry support them. When it was found that France could not make sugar under 6 h. a lb., was it not tyranny to restrain her citizens from importing at 1 h.? or would it not have been so to have laid a duty of 5 h. on the imported ? The permitting an exchange of industries with other nations is a direct encouragement of your own, which without that, would bring you nothing for your comfort, and would of course cease to be produced. On the question of the next Presidential election, I am a mere looker-on. I never permit myself to express an opinon, or to feel a wish on the subject. I indulge a single hope only, that the choice may fall on one who will be a friend of peace, of economy, of the republican principles of our Constitution, and of the salutary distribution of powers made by that between the general and the local governments; to this, I ever add sincere prayers for your happiness and prosperity.
Answer is that property rights for natural resources should be divided equally among all human beings.
Obama 'Brags' About 'Negative Ads That Are Completely Unrelated to the Issues at Hand' From http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MTUyZDc5MDM0YzUzNWE5ZThjNzFiMTRlZDM3OGU3YjA= Ha! "If we're going to ask questions about, you know, who has been promulgating negative ads that are completely unrelated to the issues at hand, I think I win that contest pretty handily," Obama said. Just note that if McCain had said that, it would be seen as a sign of age and dementia. If Palin had said that, it would be a sign she's not ready for prime time. If Biden said that... well, that scenario presumes that a reporter would be around to notice, but if he did, it would mean that it's a Monday..."
"Buffett said he earned $46 million in 2006 and had paid a lower tax rate than one of the secretaries in his office, who earned about $60,000." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/26/AR2007062602504.html "Buffett cited himself, the third-richest person in the world, as an example. Last year, Buffett said, he was taxed at 17.7 percent on his taxable income of more than $46 million. His receptionist was taxed at about 30 percent." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy.../06/27/AR2007062700097.html?hpid=sec-politics who's the moron here that still thinks this is funny...please stand up