PDA

View Full Version : Bush could be impeached


peter2002
Jan 29, 2003, 07:36 PM
They got him. Only 2 years into his monarchy, oops I mean presidency, Bush has broken a federal law and could go to jail.

Remember "Boxgate," the incident last week at a St. Louis warehouse in which President Bush touted small business and things made in America? And the problem was, he was standing behind a bunch of boxes that had tape over the words "Made in China"?

Covering up the "Made In" labels is against the law, a violation of venerable Title 19, Chapter 4, Subtitle II, Part 1, Sec. 134.11, which "requires that every article of foreign origin (or its container) imported into the United States shall be marked in a conspicuous place as legibly, indelibly and permanently" as possible, "in such manner as to indicate to an ultimate purchaser . . . [the] name of the country of origin of the article."

Further, "any person who, with intent to conceal the information . . . defaces, destroys, removes, alters, covers, obscures, or obliterates any mark required under the provisions of this chapter shall -- (1) upon conviction for the first violation . . . be fined not more than $100,000 or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both. . . ." A year in the slammer?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A57958-2003Jan28.html

Durandal7
Jan 29, 2003, 07:45 PM
Wow, that is an even more petty and pointless idea then impeaching Clinton on perjury.

LethalWolfe
Jan 29, 2003, 07:55 PM
Originally posted by peter2002
They got him. Only 2 years into his monarchy, oops I mean presidency, Bush has broken a federal law and could go to jail.

Remember "Boxgate," the incident last week at a St. Louis warehouse in which President Bush touted small business and things made in America? And the problem was, he was standing behind a bunch of boxes that had tape over the words "Made in China"?

Covering up the "Made In" labels is against the law, a violation of venerable Title 19, Chapter 4, Subtitle II, Part 1, Sec. 134.11, which "requires that every article of foreign origin (or its container) imported into the United States shall be marked in a conspicuous place as legibly, indelibly and permanently" as possible, "in such manner as to indicate to an ultimate purchaser . . . [the] name of the country of origin of the article."

Further, "any person who, with intent to conceal the information . . . defaces, destroys, removes, alters, covers, obscures, or obliterates any mark required under the provisions of this chapter shall -- (1) upon conviction for the first violation . . . be fined not more than $100,000 or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both. . . ." A year in the slammer?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A57958-2003Jan28.html

What if the other 5 sides of the boxes were still marked correctly?

Lethal

G4scott
Jan 29, 2003, 07:59 PM
Originally posted by LethalWolfe


What if the other 5 sides of the boxes were still marked correctly?

Lethal

true that...

Some people can't just can't deal with Bush. It's those 'sore loserman' guys...

Durandal7
Jan 29, 2003, 08:06 PM
Originally posted by LethalWolfe


What if the other 5 sides of the boxes were still marked correctly?

Lethal
That raises a lot of questions.

What if no one gives a **** about boxes?

MrMacMan
Jan 29, 2003, 08:09 PM
Um... if you read the article and looked at it for a while you can read that.

The Person who put the tape on the boxes could techincally go to jail, not bush. Sure bush wanted all the hype of American Economy he sure got it right, every american product at some point was in china.

Really, look on your TV's, computers, phones, printers, heck EVERYTHING.

BigJayhawk
Jan 29, 2003, 08:16 PM
GET REAL!

Thanatoast
Jan 29, 2003, 08:20 PM
it *is* funny, though. :)

Dont Hurt Me
Jan 29, 2003, 08:33 PM
Dont think so

Macmaniac
Jan 29, 2003, 08:45 PM
Ah Bush, the perfect conversation piece!

mcrain
Jan 29, 2003, 08:48 PM
Originally posted by Macmaniac
Ah Bush, the perfect conversation piece!

Yes, true, I think about bush all the time. I love talking about bush. I love thinking about bush. I probably think about bush at least once every couple of minutes...

Oh wait, you're talking about George W. Bush... Oh, nevermind.

ecino1
Jan 29, 2003, 09:19 PM
Meh, usually here in Canada (or in toronto at least) George Bush is mainly an object of ridcule (spelling) or mockery for his stupidity. Not to say the bonehead we have leading our country is any smarter. Heh.

funkywhat2
Jan 29, 2003, 09:47 PM
Originally posted by ecino1
Meh, usually here in Canada (or in toronto at least) George Bush is mainly an object of ridcule (spelling) or mockery for his stupidity. Not to say the bonehead we have leading our country is any smarter. Heh.

In good American fun: It's "ridicule" not "ridcule." Toronto is capitalized.

Just kidding.:D :p ;) :)

Kid Red
Jan 30, 2003, 12:01 AM
Originally posted by G4scott


true that...

Some people can't just can't deal with Bush. It's those 'sore loserman' guys...

Yea it's the sore losers, yea, ok, and Bush won the popular vote, oh yea, that's right, and Katherine Harris Reb. let the recount total show the Gore won the state of Florida, yea, that's right, those sore losers! Bush didn't steal the elction and his father didn't help Regan steal it either! Those 'sore loserman guys'!

If only they'ed educate themselves :rolleyes:

WebOrbiter
Jan 30, 2003, 12:12 AM
Originally posted by Kid Red


Yea it's the sore losers, yea, ok, and Bush won the popular vote, oh yea, that's right, and Katherine Harris Reb. let the recount total show the Gore won the state of Florida, yea, that's right, those sore losers! Bush didn't steal the elction and his father didn't help Regan steal it either! Those 'sore loserman guys'!

If only they'ed educate themselves

OMG, I would say something, but it'd be too easy. :rolleyes:

fixyourthinking
Jan 30, 2003, 04:06 AM
You forget the media has exemption to this rule/law. A media producer/editor that does not wish to promote a brand or name or who has not obtained permission to use a brand/name/trademark MUST cover it up. Look at every sports show, the name is covered up on the bottom of the Plasma monitors they use.

For the guy who said Bush lost the popular vote even in Florida, what a loser! Gore tried to get votes disregarded from military voters and anything that had a bad "chad" was a vote for Gore. Talk about a loser? You are enjoying the freedoms you do because of Reagan helping to disarm the world. It was a high cost to pay, but a worthy one. Clinton moved funds from spending in the military to prop up social reform, now look where we are at. Finding he was taking credit for a fake economy (dotcoms, enrons, MCIs) and facing military so underfunded 1/3 are below poverty lines.

pgwalsh
Jan 30, 2003, 04:14 AM
Originally posted by G4scott


true that...

Some people can't just can't deal with Bush. It's those 'sore loserman' guys... I met George Bush during his campaign for president. I like him as an individual and I think he's a very solid president that brings respect back to the Whitehorse, which Clitoris and Hitlery lost.

If you think he'll get axed for something like that you're not thinking. If Clitoris can get away with oral sex in the bathroom of the White House from an intern then George has a lot of breathing room.

AssassinOfGates
Jan 30, 2003, 06:29 AM
Oh please...

Even though I hate the guy, who are we gonna replace him with... the walking corpse Cheney? :rolleyes:

JohnStrass
Jan 30, 2003, 08:53 AM
Originally posted by pgwalsh
I met George Bush during his campaign for president. I like him as an individual and I think he's a very solid president that brings respect back to the Whitehorse, which Clitoris and Hitlery lost.

If you think he'll get axed for something like that you're not thinking. If Clitoris can get away with oral sex in the bathroom of the White House from an intern then George has a lot of breathing room.
Thats true. Its not like we should be worried that the biggest campaign contributer to him, the ones who gave his staff free corporate jet use during the florida debacle, and dictated whom he should appoint to his high positions was Enron... (remember them?)
I guess financial corruption is OK, as long as enough can share in the spoils and the poor saps who get screwed can be convinced that kinky behavior in the white office is worse for the country. Moral arrogance is the opiate of the masses.

John
wishing I had written this on my lovely iMac, not this dell box...

Backtothemac
Jan 30, 2003, 09:19 AM
peter, why do you post these stories and put these crazy titles on them.

Damn.

fixyourthinking
Jan 30, 2003, 09:40 AM
Uneducated answer too ... ENRON gave MILLIONS to the democratic campaign as well. And just because contributions were accepted doesn't mean they were KNOWN corrupt. After all, ENRON hoodwinked their own employees into thinking they were making millions, when actually they were losing BILLLIONS!!!!

If you don't realize that Bush's care of "big business" and oil are the two companies that make the world go around, then take an economics lesson. I guess you also think, tax cuts being proposed are for the "rich"? How fair is it exactly for someone to say "because you have more you owe 75%, because I make less I owe 10%?"

mcrain
Jan 30, 2003, 09:50 AM
Originally posted by adzoox
If you don't realize that Bush's care of "big business" and oil are the two companies that make the world go around, then take an economics lesson. I guess you also think, tax cuts being proposed are for the "rich"? How fair is it exactly for someone to say "because you have more you owe 75%, because I make less I owe 10%?"

I'll take an economics lesson when you take a tax lesson.

It is NOT fair for one person to pay 75% of their income in taxes while someone else pays 10%, no one ever said it was. The rub is that what you described is not the way the taxing system works now.

Right now, if you take into account all taxes of any sort, on average, everyone pays approximately the same percentage of their income in taxes (excepting the extraordinarily rich who pay less and the extraordinarily poor who pay less too).

Bush's proposed tax cuts will disproportionately benefit the wealthy, and the net effect of that will to make federal income taxes look more fair, but if you look at the overall tax burden, the less wealthy will have to pay a larger share of taxes. This will take what is essentially a flat taxation system and make it regressive (taxing the wealthy less than the poor), which is just as unfair, if not more so, as taxing the wealthy more than the poor.

fixyourthinking
Jan 30, 2003, 10:00 AM
The top 4% of the country (monetarily) already pay 90% of the taxes. Wealthy to Uncle Sam is over $75,000 - please don't tell me that I am in the same bracket ($84,000) as the guy next door, ($45,000) - a flat tax is the only fair tax. After, business taxes (which the "wealthy" own business, sales taxes, property taxes, local fees (taxes by another name) - the average person that makes over $250,000 pays out the wazoo, almost 74.5% - now, that doesn't necessarily mean they pay that, that is the effective tax rate - there are business losses, tax deferred items, charity, etc, etc. My figures are actual figures taken from the IRS, if you care to peak.

Backtothemac
Jan 30, 2003, 10:09 AM
mcrain,
my mom and dad are now making over $150,000 a year. After their tax this year. All of it mind you, social security, etc, they had a true net income of just over 88,000. I made just under 40k. I paid 0 tax and got back 2,000 I paid, plus another 2,000. Now, how is that fair? Lets just go to a flat tax. Personally, I don't think the government should get more than God, so 10% of everyone's income, no deductions, not writeoffs, just 10% of what you make. For corporations, 20%, small business, 15%.

I bet that would generate more revenue than anything we have ever done in the past.

mcrain
Jan 30, 2003, 10:18 AM
Originally posted by adzoox
The top 4% of the country (monetarily) already pay 90% of the taxes. Wealthy to Uncle Sam is over $75,000 - please don't tell me that I am in the same bracket ($84,000) as the guy next door, ($45,000) - a flat tax is the only fair tax. After, business taxes (which the "wealthy" own business, sales taxes, property taxes, local fees (taxes by another name) - the average person that makes over $250,000 pays out the wazoo, almost 74.5% - now, that doesn't necessarily mean they pay that, that is the effective tax rate - there are business losses, tax deferred items, charity, etc, etc. My figures are actual figures taken from the IRS, if you care to peak.

Look, you're wrong. This is what I do for a living.

You're taking a piece of information (that the wealthiest 4% pay 90% of the federal income taxes) and equating that to the wealthy paying a higher percentage of their income in all taxes than the poor. You've falled for the "SPIN." Oh, and the rich don't pay 90% of their income in taxes, the 36.9 percent of federal income taxes they pay happens to make up 90% of the federal income taxes collected. There is a difference.

Again, taxes and tax policy is what I do for a living. If you really are interested in a quick tax education, I'd be happy to remove the SPIN wool from in front of your eyes.

For the record, yes, I'm a democrat, but not when it comes to tax analysis. Taxes are like math. 1+2+3+4=5+5. What the political parties like to do is argue about how it's unfair that the left side has different numbers, while the other side argues about how the right side has bigger numbers! The fact is they are equal.

A similar thing happens with taxes. You can put on blinders and argue all you want about sales taxes or income taxes or whatever, but until you take the blinders off, it's hard to have a real appreciation for the complexity of the taxing system, and what happens to the system as a whole as you change one thing and not others.

mcrain
Jan 30, 2003, 10:20 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
mcrain,
my mom and dad are now making over $150,000 a year. After their tax this year. All of it mind you, social security, etc, they had a true net income of just over 88,000. I made just under 40k. I paid 0 tax and got back 2,000 I paid, plus another 2,000. Now, how is that fair? Lets just go to a flat tax. Personally, I don't think the government should get more than God, so 10% of everyone's income, no deductions, not writeoffs, just 10% of what you make. For corporations, 20%, small business, 15%.

I bet that would generate more revenue than anything we have ever done in the past.

I agree 100%, but you have to include all income. No special breaks for dividends, gifts, inheiratences, couples, singles, old people, young people, corporations, whatever. If you tax every single dollar that you receive from any source, every year, with no deductions and no breaks, then it's fair.

Oh, you have to eliminate all other taxes, including SS, FICA, State, Local, sales, excise, lottery, everything.

If you do that, the flat rate would probably be aboue 25-30%, maybe a little higher.

(edit) Oh, BTTM, you don't really think you paid 0 tax do you? You paid SS, FICA, State, Local, sales, gasoline, excise, property if you own any, etc... Without looking at every dollar that came in and every dollar that went out, I can't say for sure, but I'd guess you probably paid a pretty substantial portion of your income out in taxes. Maybe not the same 40whatever percentage that your parents did, but probably not too far off.

fixyourthinking
Jan 30, 2003, 10:28 AM
There are property taxes, excise taxes, business taxes, let's not forget my "storm drain analysis fee" (a tax), gasoline taxes, library fees (another tax), sales tax - I just paid $280 on my car $830 on my condo. So make sure you RAISE that tax burden up in your re - engineered quote.

I am sure if you do taxes for a living, then a flat tax system has you running scared.

mcrain
Jan 30, 2003, 10:36 AM
Originally posted by adzoox
I am sure if you do taxes for a living, then a flat tax system has you running scared.

Not at all. We have a flat tax system now, but it's a nightmare. I'd much prefer a "REAL" flat tax system (as opposed to a flat federal income tax only) which is unfair.

fixyourthinking
Jan 30, 2003, 11:33 AM
We do? Hmmmm ...

Backtothemac
Jan 30, 2003, 11:44 AM
mcrain,
I agree. Get rid of all the others, and just have a 10% federal tax. I think they should outlaw state tax personally. The states that don't have it are the ones that have the best educational systems, roads, etc.

Now, the only thing that I think should be exempt is one thing. Inherritance. That should be exempt for everyone. Pay tax on the money you make off that money, yes, but not on the innitial amount. My daughter gets $400,000 if I die, and the government gets what, 40% of that? That is just wrong.

wdlove
Jan 30, 2003, 11:54 AM
The answer is don't ever vote Democrat again. We do need major reform of our tax system. The Democrat Party is only interested, "How can we take more out of their pay checks each week."

pgwalsh
Jan 30, 2003, 12:10 PM
Originally posted by adzoox
The top 4% of the country (monetarily) already pay 90% of the taxes. Wealthy to Uncle Sam is over $75,000 - please don't tell me that I am in the same bracket ($84,000) as the guy next door, ($45,000) - a flat tax is the only fair tax. After, business taxes (which the "wealthy" own business, sales taxes, property taxes, local fees (taxes by another name) - the average person that makes over $250,000 pays out the wazoo, almost 74.5% - now, that doesn't necessarily mean they pay that, that is the effective tax rate - there are business losses, tax deferred items, charity, etc, etc. My figures are actual figures taken from the IRS, if you care to peak. I agree with almost everything your say, but someone in the $150,000.00 and aboe pays 55%. There should be a flat tax. You shouldn't be punished for being successful.

Oh and the Hoover institute is working with Russia on a flat tax system of 13%. Obviously Russia is having problems with people paying taxes due to corruption. I've head the the US would do quite well with a flat 17 to 20% tax system. No special write-offs or anything else. A

Quark
Jan 30, 2003, 12:57 PM
Originally posted by mcrain


Not at all. We have a flat tax system now, but it's a nightmare. I'd much prefer a "REAL" flat tax system (as opposed to a flat federal income tax only) which is unfair.

Dude, put down the crack pipe and get real.

We are NOT on a flat tax system. The percentage that you have to pay goes up as your income increases. That is why it is NOT flat and that it why it IS UNFAIR.

uhlawboi80
Jan 30, 2003, 01:39 PM
Nope, McRain is right...we are essentially on a flat tax system, its just really hard to recognize it. He explained it to you simply...if you didnt get it, just give up.

i agree that inheritance and estate taxes are shady. i dont think they justify them very well, though for estates there are ways to get around it...graduated gifting to a trust over years etc.

oh, and you cant "outlaw" state taxes. Sitting here right now in a constitutional law class that almost made me laugh out loud. Read your constitution, taxing is one of the powers specifically given to states. Federal taxation is based on more shaky reasoning than state. And P.S...the states that "dont have taxes" have enormous sales taxes (which may be more fair IMO) but you arent getting out of taxes. Texas doesnt have an income tax but we have taxes. in fact...all sales taxes are local or state levied taxes.

mcrain
Jan 30, 2003, 02:08 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
mcrain,
I agree. Get rid of all the others, and just have a 10% federal tax. I think they should outlaw state tax personally. The states that don't have it are the ones that have the best educational systems, roads, etc.

Now, the only thing that I think should be exempt is one thing. Inherritance. That should be exempt for everyone. Pay tax on the money you make off that money, yes, but not on the innitial amount. My daughter gets $400,000 if I die, and the government gets what, 40% of that? That is just wrong.

I'm glad we sort of agree on this issue. I find that for the most part everyone agrees with me on taxes, they just don't realize it. As for inheiratence, your opinion is skewed by the view that a transfer of $400,000 would trigger the estate tax. It wouldn't. In fact, I've had clients who had estates upwards of 2-3 million, where we managed to transfer all of the estate tax free. In fact, I had one instance where with good planning, we transferred a 12+ million dollar estate tax free (actually delayed), and during the time we bought with those moves, we transferred most of the remainder tax free. The resulting tax was approximately equivelent to an estate approximately 2 Mil in size. Huge savings.

I know the rules, and I know there are ways around some/most of the rules. How is that fair? Why is it fair for my client to pay an effective estate tax rate of 5-8% while you pay 40% because you didn't hire a good lawyer? It's not fair.

The only fair, really fair thing, is to eliminate all rules related to special treatment for any money (including estates, gifts, everything), and then only tax money as it gets spent or transferred. That means that there is no incentive to hold onto your money until your death, there is no incentive to do one thing over another thing, and people will then be motivated by the free markets, their investment advice, etc... without regard to social policy being dictated by tax policy.

Yes, mark today on the calendar. BTTM and McRain (ha, it's mcrain or M.Crain) agree for the most part on a very contentious issue!

mcrain
Jan 30, 2003, 02:11 PM
Originally posted by wdlove
The answer is don't ever vote Democrat again. We do need major reform of our tax system. The Democrat Party is only interested, "How can we take more out of their pay checks each week."

Really? I'm a democrat, I work for a taxing authority, and I don't remember ever hearing anyone say anything like that at our evil secret democrat meetings. We've certainly plotted the demise of Christianity, the integration of every golf course, and mandetory PC courses twice a day for every student up to senior in high school, but I've never heard anyone talk about that.

Yes, there was a little sarcasm in there...

mcrain
Jan 30, 2003, 02:19 PM
Originally posted by Quark
Dude, put down the crack pipe and get real.

We are NOT on a flat tax system. The percentage that you have to pay goes up as your income increases. That is why it is NOT flat and that it why it IS UNFAIR.

Ha, that's almost funny. Yes, the federal income tax is progressive, but the SS tax is not, the FICA tax is not, State income taxes are not, sales taxes are not, property taxes are not, excise taxes are not, and neither are most all the other taxes.

If they aren't progressive, that means they are either flat or regressive.

For the most part, most of them are regressive, and when you take a progressive income tax and add that tax burden to the regressive tax burdens, what you end up with is a mostly flat tax system.

I'm not talking federal income tax, I'm talking ALL taxes.

Now, if you'll forgive me, I have to go take another hit off the crack pipe before I get back to work figuring out how to take more money out of the wallets of the hard working citizens of the state of Illinois. :)

mcrain
Jan 30, 2003, 02:21 PM
Originally posted by uhlawboi80
Nope, McRain is right...we are essentially on a flat tax system, its just really hard to recognize it. He explained it to you simply...if you didnt get it, just give up.

i agree that inheritance and estate taxes are shady. i dont think they justify them very well, though for estates there are ways to get around it...graduated gifting to a trust over years etc.

oh, and you cant "outlaw" state taxes. Sitting here right now in a constitutional law class that almost made me laugh out loud. Read your constitution, taxing is one of the powers specifically given to states. Federal taxation is based on more shaky reasoning than state. And P.S...the states that "dont have taxes" have enormous sales taxes (which may be more fair IMO) but you arent getting out of taxes. Texas doesnt have an income tax but we have taxes. in fact...all sales taxes are local or state levied taxes.

I didn't like my Con Law classes, but that was because I had Rotunda. He may have been the guru on the subject, but he was as dry as week old toast.

Good luck with law school and then the bar exam. Do you know where you want to practice? What you want to specialize in?

uhlawboi80
Jan 30, 2003, 02:45 PM
i think i will most likely be practicing in either health law or biotech patents..those were the general strengths of my undergrad degrees.

not sure where i want to practice. i love new york, but houston is such a major law center and biotech center now that i might just get anchored here for a good long while. not the worst place to be, but id prefer a change

Kid Red
Jan 30, 2003, 03:11 PM
Originally posted by WebOrbiter


OMG, I would say something, but it'd be too easy. :rolleyes:

Please by all means, enlighten us with your wisdom :rolleyes:

ibjoshua
Jan 30, 2003, 05:47 PM
mcrain,

I'm the first to admit I can't get my head around taxation systems. And I hate to disapoint you but your post didn't do too much to enlighten me - that's a testimony to the complexity of the issue not your abilty to speak on the matter.

I wish others were a tad more modest on the subject. The reality is you can "prove" anything with statistics, politicians and radio 'shock-jocks' do it all the time. The key thing is 'don't believe the hype' when statistics are dragged out kicking and screaming into the public arena. 90% this, 123% that, 25% for the rest. The holistic approach that you (obviously are trained to) use, rightly concentrates on the net effect of a whole slew of taxes, levies and exemptions.

What I do know is that some taxes and tax exemptions are very unfair, like sales taxes for instance. A family that spends everything they earn is essentially being taxed more than once on their whole income. That can't be fair.

One last thing. I challange anyone to demonstrate that the widening gap between the rich and poor that we have seen grow exponentially in the last two decades has occured despite unfair taxation systems rather than because of them.

i_b_joshua

ibjoshua
Jan 30, 2003, 05:53 PM
BTW didn't you mean MC Rain?
(a la MC Hammer)

"Go witcha Rain!" :)

i_b_joshua

JohnStrass
Jan 31, 2003, 08:34 AM
Originally posted by pgwalsh
I agree with almost everything your say, but someone in the $150,000.00 and aboe pays 55%. There should be a flat tax. You shouldn't be punished for being successful.

Oh and the Hoover institute is working with Russia on a flat tax system of 13%. Obviously Russia is having problems with people paying taxes due to corruption. I've head the the US would do quite well with a flat 17 to 20% tax system. No special write-offs or anything else. A

No. No punishment here for being rich. With an income of 150K one has substantially more discressionary income than soeone earing 40K. That is what should be taxed. and how! I will see my (privately earned)income go up by 100k in the next year and I am happy to pay more takes because I prefer to use my (tax subsidized) subway rather than drive my car, to my (tax subsidized) research labs to find a way to diagnose cancer earlier, thanks to my (tax subsidized) medical and (tax subsidized)PhD training. Then tonight I will drive on a (tax subsidized) highway to attend a meeting. And I am happy that this morning I did not have to walk by the usual homeless person because she was in a (tax subsidized) shelter. I only regret that my nurse is not available for work next week because he is involved in (tax subsidized) military training.

Oh, and those no-income tax states. You mean like the laughing stocks of education (NH, FL) as opposed to the "overtaxed" ones (CA, MA).

You dont get nothin' for free. this is a country of private wealth and public squallor.
______________________________________

Enough. Maybe we should start a MacPAC. Dontae macs and expertise to those candidates who express interest in getting more macs out there:) .
John

Backtothemac
Jan 31, 2003, 08:54 AM
I think that you and I actually do agree on more things than we would think mcrain. Really. But still, drop the conffetii, and break out the drinks, WE AGREE!

Hey, you want to do my taxes for me ;)

Phil Of Mac
Feb 1, 2003, 12:06 PM
Originally posted by mcrain


I agree 100%, but you have to include all income. No special breaks for dividends, gifts, inheiratences, couples, singles, old people, young people, corporations, whatever. If you tax every single dollar that you receive from any source, every year, with no deductions and no breaks, then it's fair.

Oh, you have to eliminate all other taxes, including SS, FICA, State, Local, sales, excise, lottery, everything.

If you do that, the flat rate would probably be aboue 25-30%, maybe a little higher.


Try 50%. At last count, state, local, and federal taxes took 47% of national income. This was 1996, so it's sure to have changed now, but the fact remains. And have you ever actually calculated how much of your money goes to taxes? For some people it's over 50%!

That's why there are so many taxes. Government is so expensive that to fund it with a single tax would show clearly what the tax burden is, and people would get upset. That's what the politicians don't want, because then they'd have to cut their pet projects to combat goth culture in Michigan or to remove tattoos in California. They might even have to do other things, like find a way out of the fraudulent Ponzi scheme and second income tax they call Social Security. They don't want to be in this situation because they want to keep up the illusion of the government being everyone's rich daddy, even though he gets rich by means that, if anyone other than the government tried to employ, would be called daylight robbery.

Alexis de Tocqueville once said, "The American Republic will endure until Congress discovers it can bribe the people with the people's own money."

Juventuz
Feb 1, 2003, 12:35 PM
Originally posted by ecino1
Meh, usually here in Canada (or in toronto at least) George Bush is mainly an object of ridcule (spelling) or mockery for his stupidity. Not to say the bonehead we have leading our country is any smarter. Heh.

Kind of like here in the US, Canada is mainly an object of ridicule or mockery for just being Canada.

Clark C
Feb 5, 2003, 12:22 AM
Kid Red, I'm sorry, but you are dead wrong with your facts. Bush won Flordia fair and square. Just because the person you wanted to win didn't win doesn't mean you can make up whatever you want. Believe it or not, it was Bush who got the shaft on the whole Flordia situation. First of all, the major networks ILLEGALLY called Flordia for Gore before the polls closed. Even the most modest of estimates claim Bush lost 10,000 votes because of this. Second Flordia law was BROKEN by whining on Gores part. The law very clearly states that all ballots must be reported no later than 7 days after the election, and that all votes are final. PLAIN AND SIMPLE. Bush would have one under the real set of rules and bent ones. Democrates got around this law and brought the case to the supreme court who finally put an end to the bull $#i+. Bush had more votes no matter how you count it. Not to be condesending, but LEARN YOUR FACTS, YOUR WRONG. To even try to argue the Regan/Mondale race has to be the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. Regan one. Mondale lost. Mondale also lost the senate race this year. WHEN SOMEONE GETS LESS VOTES THEY LOSE, THATS HOW IT WORKS. (Don't give me the electorical college arguement, cause both parties win and lose under the same rules.)

JohnStrass
Feb 5, 2003, 01:39 PM
Originally posted by Clark C
Kid Red, I'm sorry, but you are dead wrong with your facts. Bush won Flordia fair and square. Just because the person you wanted to win didn't win doesn't mean you can make up whatever you want. .... Mondale also lost the senate race this year. WHEN SOMEONE GETS LESS VOTES THEY LOSE, THATS HOW IT WORKS. (Don't give me the electorical college arguement, cause both parties win and lose under the same rules.)

Uh, the Miami Herald (not exactly a Gore-lovin' paper)and other papers demonstrated that Gore won hands down in a total count of all ballots in the state. Gore got more votes. Bush won the day. Some country we live in.

John

now, how about starting that MacPAC...does anyone know of any Mac-friendly politicians?

Phil Of Mac
Feb 5, 2003, 09:37 PM
Originally posted by JohnStrass


Uh, the Miami Herald (not exactly a Gore-lovin' paper)and other papers demonstrated that Gore won hands down in a total count of all ballots in the state. Gore got more votes. Bush won the day. Some country we live in.

John

now, how about starting that MacPAC...does anyone know of any Mac-friendly politicians?

No, they showed that Bush won in a total count.

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/florida.ballots/stories/main.html