WE Blog

Chas.,

It’s not my job to have to prove true what you claim. So stating:

“ProudMan, do you deny that you did NOT call for the jailing of war dissenters???”

First, that doesn’t make sense. Second, I asked you to prove where I called for the jailing of war dissenters as you claim. I’m still waiting.

“ProudMan, do you deny that you did NOT call for the jailing of war dissenters???”

Right… thats a typo… It SHOULD read:

Do you deny calling for the jailing of war dissenters (or calling them traitors)??

I ALSO said, that the reference is to something said in the past… and that if you did NOT say that, if you were victim of nic switching — then I humbly apologize…

Now, you gonna let it go, or do you want to continue dancing around the question??

I wonder if some of those supporters would run the other way if Obama did stand up and denounce what he did. And more than a few words on the civil rights of our gay brothers and sisters.

He does need to speak more about it.

“When forces that are hostile to socialism try to turn the development of some socialist country towards capitalism, it becomes not only a problem of the country concerned, but a common problem and concern of all socialist countries.”

Is this the Hillary Clinton or Barrack Obama Doctrine?

On another note, Obama and Huckleberry winning in Kansas might have a silver lining. In Huckleberry’s case – it was clear message that republicans are NOT happy with the frontrunner.

Could it be, that Kansas voters are moving more toward each other? Could we represent voters who do not feel either leader represents our collective views?

Could it mean that republicans are just as tired of the old status quo old guard party dogma as the democrats are?

The democrats overcame race in Kansas to vote Obama because of their dislike of Hillary.

The republicans, still muddied in the religious right, shunned McCain for the bible thumping Huckleberry. Too bad. I thought maybe we were all starting to pull to the middle.

But regardless, maybe the majority of Kanasans have not found a real leader to represent our views.

AmWay doesn’t have any income to speak of.

For him to complain about “confiscatory taxes” is the height of hypocrisy–posing as rich so he defend the rich against his own society’s best interest.

“My position is in direct opposition to that of those who feel because I have more, I am obligated to provide MORE of my hard earned money. If America is an inclusive society – all Americans should pay into the system which provides sufficient funding for the basics.”

First of all, the problem with that is that the disparity in terms of absolute money between those who have a lot and those who don’t have a lot is absolutely huge. There is no way that those on the bottom end of the income ladder can provide nearly as much in absolute dollars as those on the high end, or that people on the lower end (who would be more likely to require assistance, can even reasonably be expected to pay into such a system, even small amounts have a much greater personal economic impact than greater amounts on those with greater wealth). It doesn’t matter what kind of tax structure you have, the wealthier will provide several times more in absolute dollars than those who are poorer. To try to enforce a kind of equity is just insane, and few, even on the conservative side, really propose that. Some libertarian types get around this by arguing an extreme position of no government funding of social programs whatsoever. That is not only unbelievably harsh, it is completely ignorant of history and reality. I have spent my entire professional career working with people that both the left and the right tend to regard as the “truly needy”. Reality check, private charitable donations don’t cut it. Never have, never will. And that isn’t because those who give to charity are stingy, but because of the nature of charitable donations. For example, people who give charitable donations tend to want to see what their money goes for, so charitable donations tend to fund things such as program expansions, bricks and mortar, that sort of thing. For day to day funding, however, people tend not so donate for those things in a reliable manner. Without government funding, people who literally do need continued support (i.e., those with physical, intellectual, or psychiatric issues) would end up on the street, dead, or warehoused. I have talked to some of the most fanatic liberarian sorts that have literally told me fine, on the basis of their subscription to a position very similar to the one you posted that I replied to. And the fact is, if one looks at human societies through anthropology, or even the societies of non-human primates, one finds no evidence for the kind of extreme every man is an island philisophy the extreme liberatian/Ayn Rand types subscribe to.

“You presume by my response to one post – that I have no regard for my fellow man. That is the quick and easy liberal attachment to those who are not of the Robin Hood faith. Because I don’t want to pay more, I am a cold heartless soul (evil).”

I responded exactly to what you said.

“If you’ve no obligation to your fellow American than they have no obligation to you.”

As I said before, I don’t think a society based on such an assumption is possible. It is possible to have a selfish multi-layered society, but even in those societies there are recognized obligations to family, within a social group, and within other groups, some of which membership in is voluntary but some of which membership is not voluntary.

“I have contributed much to our society, as a veteran I’ve served many years, in my community I am involved in a few service organisations, I have been involved in politics on a local level, I tithe at my church, and I take maximum charitable donations because I give.”

Except for the fact that I have not been a veteran, I have and do all of the things you stated above. But, I do not confuse my charitable giving as being equivalent to the sort of ongoing, monitored support that is necessary for programs serving people in need that is provided by government funding (and the amounts are not all that huge).

“Do not confuse my belief in a federal government with limited involvement in our life (unconstitutioned social programs, corporate welfare, and earmarks (pork) with being raised or characterized as a scrooge.”

I do not assume that you are a scrooge (although I have run into quite a few scrooges on the libertarian end). However, I think that when someone dismisses social programs as “unconstitutional” (and if they were enacted by a constitutionally constructed government, they are NOT “unconstitutional”) or assumes that federal involvement automatically = less freedom/less desirable, such statements reveal a lack of understanding of how freedoms are enforced and supported, and of history. One hundred years ago, people were routinely enslaved through the use of debt, states were allowed to disenfranchise large groups of people (directly contravening the 14th Amendment to the Constitution), and a larger number of people than almost anyone realizes literally froze and starved to death in American cities (as well as, of course, the country), all because of relative lack of federal oversight and involvement. Yes, there were success stories as well, and yes our country was better than many other countries, but good old days where states were more powerful and the federal governments involvement was more hands off were not so good, and a lot of people suffered under private and public tyrannies. It’s a matter of balance. Despite what I have said, I am not a throw money at everything liberal. There are limitations, but the real world is truly nuanced.

The trick, right now, regardless of who is elected, is to get our budget back under control. That requires at the very least holding the line on spending, and holding the lines on revenue. The problem with the recent Republican run in government is that the popular thing to do is to increase spending (whether on social programs or military spending or for that matter commercial infrastructure) and to cut revenue (tax cuts). That has been an absolute disaster.

We now have an economy that is propped up largely by being the primary manufacturing customer of a communist dictatorship who loans us the money that they earn from selling us goods.

Chas.,

Don’t come back to me to prove your claims. Making a statement about me and then expecting me to deny it is childish at best.

One of these years you may actually recall that I’m a Libertarian. I don’t call for people to be sent to jail just because I disagree with them. On the contrary, I want the ‘wackos’ to have nice loud voices so that I know who they are.

Proud Man… Then I humbly apologize for reading you wrong in previous posts… OK??

The Spirit article says to log-in in to comment. But, the form does not appear. What is this? A way to prune comments?

When Republican forces that are hostile to socialism try to turn the advancement of socialism towards capitalism, it becomes not only a problem of the People, but a common problem and concern of all Democrat socialists.

BTW, a lot of right-wing posters are NOT JM-Regular.

Ksgrm, Max, GMC, econ, Gene Raston are definitely not. Proudman, outlander, and Heckler probably are not.

Right Angle, Pat Herroni, Kitrell, and American Way very likely are Regular.

Right, Regular.

And you’ve never admitted posting as JM either.

By the way, Regular is very likely Taz as well.

I think you may include Max in the list of puppets Capn. Certainly there is no proof otherwise.

See, he still won’t admit he was JM, even after he peed his pants when J.M.’s name was posted to the WEBlog.

If he hadn’t had such a $h*t hemorrage, we never would have known for sure that JM was Regular.

Unbelievable.

Re: Comment made earlier about Missouri, and rural whites and blacks…

Last time I lived in Missouri, at least compared to Kansas, Missouri has a fairly high rural black population… Not sure on that demographic split you got there AmWay…

Just reminiscing…

“So show some balls CapnAmerica and post your real name here on the blog.”

You didn’t post YOUR real name here for at least a year and a half, McCluer, and now you use yet another nic.

So, were you a sniveling coward for a year and a half?

Are you a sniveling coward now?

Just curious.

I’m not Amway and didn’t make it to the caucus. I saw the line and knew I couldn’t stand that long in line, so went home.

Feel better now WSClark or do you need to throw another hissy 3 day cursing fit like you did in the last meetup? :)

You’ve already used that one Brad, try again.

Perhaps, you need to wear a yellow apron instead of a red one. :)

Ya might want to give old AmWay a rest for awhile, JimmyMac.

Either that, or figure out a caucus location that none of us posters went to.

As for now, I’m gone.

See you men later.

And you too, James.

The first part was addressed to CapnAmerica, WSClark.

Sorry you couldn’t figure that out. Maybe you have pickled your brain from too much booze.

I thought we weren’t supposed to get real names here. Isn’t that in the policy?

What possible difference could it make. I have given my real name and the town in which I live. None of y’all are even close to me and I haven’t pissed off anyone enough (I don’t think) to make the trip up to the great white north.

I can see though, as tempers flare here, I drive across town might not seem so bad.

Point being, anonimity (sp?) is the blessing of the internets. Keeps people safe.

So back oof with identites — all parties involved. Not saying I have any control here, just tryin to be a voice of reson.

BTW, I get $0.0595 for every typo. Saving up for Valentine’s day.

What would you know about bravery WSClark?

You should really lay off that booze Clark, you could comprehend so much more. Sad that you are drinking yourself to death.

“Sad that you are drinking yourself to death.”

Huh? WTF are you yapping about now?

I asked, since you made the statement that Capn’ was a coward for not using his real name, are you now a coward for not using your REAL name as a nic, and were you a coward for not using your REAL name for a year and a half?

Easy question, right? If, using your definition, Capn’ is a coward, then you must also be a coward.

And where does my personal bravery enter into the equation?

I dont know what other nics you might use, James… and its YOU that keeps saying I am other posters… I dont play your silly games… YOU sir, are the liar!!

So stop lying Chas, it will be okay.

Why can’t you answer the question, McCharmin?

“Easy question, right? If, using your definition, Capn’ is a coward, then you must also be a coward.”

Are you a coward WSClark? Or is it, you can’t get your size 55 waist through a door. :)

James… PROVE I am lying… A$$hole!!

“Everybody in the world will know it and not just this blog”

Jeez, sounds like another threat, McCluer. Are you back to threatening folks again?

By the way, my real name is William Stephenson Clark and I have the birth certificate to prove it.

“Are you a coward WSClark? Or is it, you can’t get your size 55 waist through a door.”

Actually, McCharmin, the Levi 501’s that I am wearing right now are a 36 – 34.

Since you have never seen me, I can only conclude that you are LYING once again.

And what would my waist size have to do with courage?

Eh?

Actually WSClark, that’s not a threat, that’s a promise. :)

Keep trying Heebie, it won’t work. You are too much of a simple mind that anyone, even a child can figure out.

As a semi-adult, McCluer, TRY to respond to these points WITHOUT making yourself look like a completely stupid anti-Semitic.

“You still haven’t answered the questions and you are still making mindless accusations about my weight and you still haven’t answered the question as to my personal courage.”

Yea, Clark, and then he keeps calling ME the liar??

the first candidate with his own blimp and now his own NASCAR team…

News Release: Ron Paul To Get NASCAR Ride?
Presidential Candidate Ron Paul To Get NASCAR Ride? Grassroots Volunteers Launch Sponsorship Effort
Grassroots supporters of conservative Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul hope to reach NASCAR’s 75 million viewers by sponsoring a race team. Ron Paul Racing’s $300,000 package includes a two-car sponsorship in the 2008 Nationwide Series.

Dated: Feb 10, 2008

Gosh, Sol, you reckon he might try buying the Rangers baseball team next?? LOL

Go RP GO1

Ummmm I dont know much about NASCAR, but isnt $300,000 a little cheap for a sponsorship??

Hey is that one of RP’s kids naked on the website?

http://www.ronpaulracing.com/blog/?p=32

Is RP another Dem mole masquerading as a conservative?

“Ron Paul was a bright light that shined in some very dark places. Ron Paul was like the town crier who rode through on his horse with his lantern, shouting the obvious to all of those with windows open to hear. Some people indeed stuck their heads out and applauded the efforts of the old man. Some closed their windows and pulled the curtains. One thing for sure though, is that the message still lingers in the darkness of the darkening night.

Let’s take a look at some of what has been exposed due to a Ron Paul presidential run.

The Media- Ron Paul showed us that the media is in bed with someone besides the American people. The media is not who they pretend to be.

Lou Dobbs is not the raging populist he claims to be. He is in fact, a liar.

Anderson Cooper is not the man of the people he makes himself out to be. He is in fact, beholden to his superiors, taking marching orders from above, manipulating the facts in favor of those who are not us. Anderson Cooper is also a liar.

Sean Hannity gets his marching orders from his superiors. His is nothing more than a propaganda mouthpiece. Sean Hannity is not concerned with fairness and honest elections. Sean Hannity has an agenda he is trying to push, following the dictates of his employers, Fox News, who are not a news agency at all, but a propaganda machine masquerading as a news agency. Sean Hannity is also a liar.

MSNBC is a manipulative network also pushing their own agenda. The Ron Paul presidential run has shown us this. In fact, the Ron Paul run for president has shown EVERY MAJOR NEWS OUTLET to be blatantly dishonest. I say this without a conspiratorial bone in my body. I say this because I have witnessed it with my own eyes and ears. As an American citizen, I have grown exceedingly alarmed at this state of affairs. I too, wish for all to hear this cry from those of us who have been shouting it lately.

The Republican Party- Ron Paul showed me that the Republican party is not a party about the people. The party is about the party. Ron Paul showed me the deviant side of the party, how it strives to control the vote of the people, how it attempts to manipulate outcomes and control the will of the populace. Most striking to me, watching how Ron Paul was treated inside of his own party, was how childish and bullying the party is/was to its members if they don’t fully toe the party line.

I watched with dismay as the Republican party candidates not only stood by while the media cut Ron Paul out of its coverage, THEY LEERED AND JEERED. As a regular American, this slapped me in the face hard. I will never support a candidate for the highest office of the land, who possesses this kind of moral fracture. John McCain AND THE PREACHER MAN Mike Huckabee, were both complicit in the snubbing of Ron Paul the candidate and did not stand up for the process that the American people would simply desire to be fair.

Ron Paul, just by adhering to his principled views, showed me that the Republican party is a corrupt and un-American organization with little moral decency to go along with its long vaunted claims of being the party who possessed all of America’s moral “values”. No way. The Republican party has shown itself, once again, not to possess the morality it constantly tries to make claim to. The hypocrisy sickens me. I will not ever vote for a Republican candidate, until these sad state of affairs are rectified and apologized for. Ever.

The Democratic Party- Watching the Democratic party in full debate and stump mode with Ron Paul on my shoulder, I had to keep asking myself “Who is going to pay for all of these things?” I kept having to ask myself “What makes you think you are better at solving my problems than I am?” I had to keep asking myself, “How much that comes out of your mouth DO YOU KNOW is BS?”

I love listening to Barack Obama speak. He has got the timing down. He has got the inflection down. He even has the catch phrases down so that his audience can chime in at the appropriate moments and feel like they are part of something “hopeful”. Listening to Barack with Ron Paul whispering in my ear, though, made me wonder, “Where’s The Beef?”

We are a debtor Nation getting buried by our own governments’ wanton spending, and Barack is offering us more “programs”. Since government doesn’t create its own wealth, I wonder who is Barack going to get to pay for all of his schemes? Us? If we don’t want to go along with him, will he have us arrested? Does Barack actually think federal government by coercion is good for Americans? Does he really feel he should take from its citizenry what he needs to create the society he thinks we want? Is he really that egomaniacal? I can’t vote for someone who is that egomaniacal. I just can’t.

Hillary wants to mandate that I pay into a collective health care scheme she is devising for us. “Mandate” means government officials getting into my business, demanding my servitude. Will she have me arrested if I decide I don’t need the government to dictate to me my health concerns? If I think my health is strictly between me and my doctor, and I do not want the federal government keeping records on my gonads and my prostrate gland and my cholesterol level, will she have me arrested? If the woman can’t keep her own husband in line sexually, how in the heck does she think she can keep Americans from not going along with her plan to further encapsulate our lives into governmental nightmare bureaucracies? Why would I give her the power to choose my toothpaste flavor, much less control over all of my health choices? Thank you, Ron Paul, for making me realize just how pernicious this type of seemingly good intentioned thinking actually is. I can’t vote for a Hillary Clinton type candidate. She thinks I need her, when, in fact, I do not.

The Military- Ron Paul made me think about the vast amount of American money and machinery that resides overseas in places like Germany and Korea and Japan. He asked the fundamental question that nobody else would go near, and that was “Why are we spending so much money that we no longer have, protecting countries that can afford to protect themselves?” He asked the obviously ironic question “Why are we borrowing money from the Chinese to give to a dictator who overthrew an ELECTED government in Pakistan, while spending more borrowed money to prop up dictatorships in the ME, while we spend more borrowed money to try and create Democracy in Iraq?” He asked us why we are sending money all over the world in the form of aid when we are swiftly burying ourselves in debt at home.

I’m still waiting for someone to answer these questions.

The Economy. Ron Paul put a spotlight on something very plainly sinister and ominous. America has stopped producing and has been relying on creating money to drive ourselves along. While the rest of the world has gone along with this scenario, it may just decide to stop. When that happens, America will be as a whale on a beach, full of immenseness rendered helpless. Because our economy is bloated with regulators, consultants, lawyers, IRS agents, inspectors, over-seers, accountants… (in short, a nation full of non-productive people, people who produce nothing) our swim back to a healthy economy will be mired by lots of flopping around and going nowhere. Ron Paul’s presidential run made me see this for myself, and for that, I am glad the old guy put out all of that energy.

I owe him thanks, and thanks again and again, for being the guy on the horse with the lantern…”

http://www.nolanchart.com/article2638.html

KSagnostic, sorry it took so long, but here’s my response to your 2/8/08 4:11 pm post on the Open Thread.

I apologize for the necessarily long posts. Y’all can scroll over like you usually do!

>>>Reply #1

>>>KS, I’ll put my replies within your text followed by these little arrow things. To keep it short, I’ll break it down into separate smaller posts.

Re: Max Back from 2/1/2008.

I thought that this was worth a response, but I didn’t really have the time to take back then.
“Horrors (shudder)! Of course, the top 5% of tax payers also pay more in absolute terms than the bottom 95% (60% to 40%). The top 10% pays 70% to 30%, and the top 80% pays 86% to 14%. By the time we get to the top 50%, not only do they pay 97% of the taxes, they make 87% of the income. They have vastly more income to pay taxes on, so of course they are going to contribute more money in income taxes.

>>>Just to clarify your numbers above. I never said they didn’t have more income. But, they also pay a much more disproportionate share of the income tax, as compared to their share of the income.

Note the Top 1% of taxpayers earn 21.2% of total income, yet pay 39.38% of the total tax.

The Top 10% of taxpayers earn 46.44% of total income, yet pay 70.30% of the total tax.

The Bottom 50% of taxpayers earn 12.83% of total income, yet pay only 3.07% of the total tax.
2005 Income Share Percentage and Tax Share Percentage
% of Income % of Tax
Top 1%____21.2%_______39.38%
Top 5%____35.75%______59.67%
Top 10%___46.44%______70.30%
Top 25%___67.52%______85.99%
Top 50%___87.17%______96.93%
Bottom
50%_______12.83%____ __3.07%

My numbers are from the IRS:
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/05in05tr.xls
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/05in06tr.xls

This is a problem in your mind and the minds of people like you. The idea that wealth redistribution is such a huge evil.

>>>KSagnostic, here is where we have a huge difference of opinion. Above we are talking about the Income Tax, and now you seem to be talking about both Income and Asset redistribution? Regardless, by what authority do you presume to be able to take from one individual and give to another? And how would you define Freedom?

And to what End do you expand your redistribution? Are you seeking to equalize income? Are you seeking to equalize assets? I don’t think you would go that far, but I don’t know how far you would go.

People in America are NOT starving to death. Far from it. And a certain amount of welfare is needed, but the Trillion dollar question is how much? To what standard of living would you raise the lowest American to, regardless of that person’s reason for being at that level? How is it your decision (or the Governments) to make? By what authority?

KSagnostic, sorry it took so long, but here’s my response to your 2/8/08 4:11 pm post on the Open Thread.

Reply #3

Thanks for posting it further down on the 2/1 thread, by the way. Also by the way, I actually disowned the above rhetorical strawman you accuse me of. As I said in the post you replied to:
“What would you prefer Max, that the bottom 50% pay 13% of the income taxes (which would be proportional)? That would be absurd and cruel. The bottom 50% could not afford that. By the way, that is actually a straw man to a certain extent, because as I recall the income tax proposal Max has proposed on this blog would not really do that (he would also exempt the poorest from paying income tax at all).”

>>>I would prefer the flat 20% tax rate above the $25,000 deduction. I’ll repost my plan below, and also get to my reasoning to answer you question of “why?”.

So yes, I actually acknowledged in my previous post that your tax plan, as I recalled it, would not “proportionally” increase the tax burden on the lower 50%. But then, that leaves me scratching my head. According to your tax plan, and given the fact that the reason why top income tax earners pay a much higher percentage in absolute tax revenues, I really don’t see much of a change in the percentage of taxes paid under your plan. I am open to explanation on this point.

>>>Again, I’ll answer the “why” where you asked me directly below.

My guess, absent that explanation, is that your flat tax is really a different issue. What you object to, it appears to me, is people in the “bottom 50%”, most of whom wouldn’t pay taxes under your plan at all, getting benefits taken from the wealth of the “top 50%” (but to be honest, even 70%-rounding down of that money comes from the top 10% and 60%-rounding up comes from the top 5%). Which brings me to what I was saying in my previous post. Economics, being the management of finite resources and to acquire potentially infinite wants and needs, still results in the fact that the people from whose income most of the taxes come are still left with far more resouces than those whose income is not supplying most of the taxes. The greater share of money coming from more wealthy taxpayers is coming because they have greater amounts, in absolute amounts, to pay. And they also correspondingly have far more, in absolute resources, left over.

>>>This is where I read between your lines and question your End Goal (equalization of income and assets), and see that you would propose some means of Income and Asset redistribution. Scaring any Freedom loving Americans out there?

See your comments below for more reasons why I drew those conclusions:

The contrast between the wants and needs that the wealthy can meet absent that income is not nearly as great as it is for those, say, on the bottom 25% of the upper 50%, or even the top portion of the lower 50% who are paying about 3% of the total load. And by the way, the comparison between absolute income and percentage of tax revenue collected is not really an appropriate one. The figures just reveal the amount of revenue coming in from the taxes collected, not the amount of their wealth paid.

KSagnostic, sorry it took so long, but here’s my response to your 2/8/08 4:11 pm post on the Open Thread.

Reply #5

2) You did say something about, as I recall, re-federalizing the welfare system so that there are strict eligibility requirements (I did not go back and look it up). I actually tend to agree with you on this to an extent, probably for different reasons (I have worked in human services and have generally found the exporting of some functions to the states, while retaining federal oversight, has resulted in far more cumbersome and contradictory bureaucracy). I am actually interested in how you would address this issue in your opposition to wealth redistribution.

>>>I posted on this the other day, but couldn’t find it. In a nutshell, let’s simplify the Income Tax by making it a modified Flat Tax and eliminate all the special interest provisions, including the welfare portion. Let’s take that same money used for welfare, and distribute that through the Federal Government . (United States Department of Health and Human Services would be the appropriate already existing agency. They can better determine the true welfare need for every applicant by looking at their entire support need situation. (The IRS with the EIC only looks at the income side of the equation and is in effect writing a blank check regardless of the specific need.) They need to factor in total income, total expenses, total subsistence payments currently being received. (Food stamps, Sec 8 Hud housing, heating assistance, ability to work, whether they are turning down full-time work to maximize welfare payments, etc…) Doesn’t our government care enough to actually help counsel these people out of poverty? Or is the goal to keep people in poverty and on welfare forever?

Keep in mind, I do see some of this as a solution in search of a real problem. However, even though I hardly agree with you at all (and I sometimes shake my head at what you post) I do respect the fact that you try to propose solutions to what you see as problems.

Also, I am really busy, so I may not have time to respond immediately to what you post.

>>>Ok Agnostic, the ball is in your court. We’ll see where it goes from here. I’ll repost my tax plan and sample tax calculations.

MAX’s MODIFIED FLAT TAX PLAN, would have a flat rate of 20% on ALL income above $25,000 per person who earns income.

No more deductions, except for the $25,000 deduction per individual and IRA/401k/Keough deductions for self-employed. The $25,000 amount would need to be indexed to inflation and changed every year, but the 20% rate should stay the same.

Gone is the mortgage interest deduction.

Gone is tax exempt interest (eg. Municipal bonds AND THIS IS WHERE THE RICH SHELTER THEIR INCOME TODAY!)

Gone is the itemized deduction.

Gone is the Unearned Income Credit.

Gone is the Child and Child care Credits.

Gone is the Cow/Calf credit, etc….

Doesn’t matter whether you are married, single, divorced, living by yourself or with 10 people. What business is it of government what your status is? Why should your marital or sexual status determine your tax rate? (Being gay or straight, married or single shouldn’t matter to the government!)

All the rich living off of tax free municipal investments will now have this income taxed.
Social Security? It’s already been taxed, so all Social Security income should be exempt from taxes the 2nd time.

And since Social Security is going to be Means Tested, benefits will be reduced by those who have a lot of assets and have saved a lot of money on their own too. And since we will need to phase out Social Security for some, we need to encourage Private Savings, so 401k/IRA/Keough deductions would still be allowed. (This defers the tax. This is not a tax exemption. The tax will be paid later on when the money is taken out.)

That’s it. Simple. Flat, yet allows for the first $25,000 earned to be tax free, and that deduction per individual filer who is age 18 and older, makes this tax less regressive then just a flat tax.

Welfare for the very poor will continue. No one starves in this country (far from it most are obese) and no one will starve in the future.
Your tax return is 1 page, we can cut back the IRS by 75%. They will still audit self-employed and businesses.

And States, if they want to follow this approach have a very easy way to modify their tax process. Kansas for example, might determine the state income tax should be 50% of the Federal tax. A one page KS form (taking your Federal tax X 50%) and attached to your one-page Federal form would be all that KS would need. California or New York, likely would want more tax. They could set their state tax rate at say 75% of the Federal tax, and use the simple 2-page process that Kansas could use.

Max writes >>>>

“This is a form of rhetorical argument that presumes a response, then replies to the presumed response.”

Hmmm… strange… Those are nearly the exact words Regular/James said to me on a different subject on another thread… Isnt that odd….

JR — I gotta say it is rather dubious to see nearly the same words, used on two different threads, and totally different topics…

And Chas, those words you quoted, are from KSagnostic.

You are a true idiot Chas.

Max, I dont care WHO said it… It is still dubious… And, it isnt clearly marked as anything but part of YOUR post…

And, Max, cant you find ANYthing to rant about other than the same old same old?? Day, after Day, after Day… Same old Max Rant and Rave… Taxes…. Socialism (defined wrong)… health care…. et al…. ad infinitum, ad nauseum…

Oh well, carry on!!

Max says >>>>

“Hillary promise to balance the budget? No.

Obama promise to balance the budget? No.”
=============================
What year did you have in mind, Max??

Any Republican candidate promise to balance the budget? NO!!

The point is??

We wont be able to collect, Clark… GWB will go hide with his bestest friends in Saudi Arabia!

Yup, and had Bush proposed a $3 Trillion Budget, Clark you would be crying day in and day out until he raised it to $4 Trillion.

Doesn’t matter. Congress appropriates the money. Bush can’t force Congress to spend one dime. He can propose all he wants, but the Socialist Democrat Majority controls Congress.

How much will they cut Bush’s budget? Hmmmm….

Ain’t gonna happen Clark, and you know it.

When was “Max” ever a late nighter?

Max is just James redux.

Goodnight.

“Yup, and had Bush proposed a $3 Trillion Budget, Clark you would be crying day in and day out until he raised it to $4 Trillion.”

Bullshit. Just another Republican lie. They can’t debate the point intelligently, so they resort to meaningless crap to distort and deflect from the issue.

The only president to even propose a balanced budget in the last forty years was a Democrat.

End of story.

Your Democrats have voted to fund every dollar of the Iraq War Clark. Twice since they’ve been in the majority.

How much will the Democrats vote to cut Bush’s budget? Not one dime. Likely, they will vote for more then what Bush asked for!

If the Democrats today cared about the deficit, they are in a position to stop it today.

And your two fearless leaders, Obama and Clinton, are not even talking about trying to balance the budget.

You don’t have a political party representing your views either Clark. Quit dancing the donkey two-step pretending that they are.

SolDevVB posted February 10, 2008 at 9:09 pm

“The Media- Ron Paul showed us that the media is in bed with someone besides the American people. The media is not who they pretend to be.”

That was very obvious years ago. Anyone with an IQ higher than a squashed snail, and Web access, could easily see it.

Take for example the false attacks at Al Gore during the 2000 campaign, such as ‘Love Story’, Love Canal, “invented”(sic) the Internet, farm chores, fancy hotel, etc.

Dig thru the archives at http://www.dailyhowler.com/ for those, and many more examples.

Do you really expect big, conglomerate, corporate-owned, for profit, ratings driven (sensationalism) media outlets to provide unbiased, detailed coverage of important issues?

And yet another yahoo that doesn’t know the difference between weather and climate………..

Dumbasses.

“cannot discuss anything without ad hominem, insults and name calling.”

Jeez, McCoward, if we took all the ad hominem, insults and name calling out of your posts, there would be nothing left.

Zip. Nada. Zilch. Nothing.

And how are you coming with your rationale for damning Capn’ for not using his real name as a nic while you hid behind multiple nics for a year and a half?

Still working on that, McCluer, or are you admitting that you were just a sniveling coward?

Eh?

Bonehead.

Typical White Trash tactics from someone from the North (Detroit) like you WSClark.

Sniveling coward eh? Pretty brave talk for a fat boy.