Radical Changes to save the economy

[rarely cober]

If you had true change. you would make radical changes: on Federal level.

Like, legalize drugs.

forget about the harm/good they do, if legalized many new business would open.

A flat income tax,
No deductions, no exceptions.

Stop deporting illegal aliens,
when caught make them buy a work Visa, on the spot, and pay a fine.

White collar crime = Hard time.

What changes would you suggest?

I left off prostitution since it's really a state issue.

[Guest 121818-1]

Generally I am not for adding taxes.
I am also not for "leagalizing" drugs or prostitution; I am for eliminating any and all laws against them. In other words it is none of the governments business so the government sholdnt have anything at all to say about it period. You talk about eliminating a black market and the organized crime that goes with it, it would happen virtually overnight. It would put a lot of people out of work like judges, DEA, some lawyers and such but the new businesses would take their place.

As far as the Federal government goes and the economy, their job is to promote our goods and services to other countries and to make sure we are getting a fair shake in our dealings with them.

I would immediately lift the restrictions on Cuba and enrter into negotians with them for some fair trade. I think Castro is about done for and I think his bro might be a little easier to deal with.

Hugo Chavez would be on my do not call list and I would assist anyone that wanted to challenge him provided they would restore democracy and fair dealings.

I would annex Mexico before they annex us.

I would institute a 99% tax on all "stars" that run their mouth anywhere about polotics, they are just entertainers and actors anyway.

I would institute a new legislation tax and a taqx credit for all legislators that can reducesome of these bullshit laws.

I am for the flat tax, no deductions no exceptions no free passes.

The federal government would not be allowed to spend more money thab it brings in and no tax increase would be allowed.

I would figure up how much the rest of the world needs to pay the US for our bases and military and send them their bills. No payment no protection close the base and return it to dirt, leave nothing behind and move it home.

Well that is a start.

I gotta go eat.

[metal_head]

Pornstaro, the Founding Fathers intended for many issues be up to the states. The Tenth Amendment states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." The Tenth Amendment has been one of my favorite arguments for years. In fact, anything not mentioned in the Constitution, should be left up to the states. We should go back to this. What works for Texas may not work for Alaska.

I am also a strong supporter of the decriminalization (not legalization) of "green tea." If green tea were to be marketed and taxed in a way similar to tobacco and alcohol, millions in tax revenue would be created every year. As a strong supporter of NORML, I could list the pros and cons and prove, to anybody while playing devil's advocate as well, that decriminalization of green tea would be the most best economical change for this country. Bottom line is if the US Government decriminalized green tea and left it up to the states to tax and market, including a small federal tax, millions would be added to the budget. Plus, I'd still pay less. Damn, I hope I don't get points for that.

A flat income tax with no deductions would not work for various reasons.

All illegal aliens need to go to Gitmo.

White collar crime = hard time? I'd be so screwed. LMAO

[Guest 121818-1]

The balls of the Tenth Ammendment were basically castrated by the war for states rights. W4e have basically been fucked by a overbearing federal government ever since. Hell the "FEDS" even forced the occupation of the states that were against a strong federal government with carpet baggers from the north. It happens even today in the instances of states that have voted, as in the people of the state voted for allowing medicinal "green tea" and the Feds say they dont care what the voters of the state want they decide based on federal law.
As long as we have politicians creating a "crisis" or an "issue" to draw attention to themselves and the sheep swallow the pablum we will forever be dominated by our federal government.

But to tax is to legalize and there will be people that will work to circumvent the tax and you would still have an avenue for the criminal element and it wouldnt help the economy except for an increase in snack foods and late night fast food joints er places.

Give us back control of our lives and the economy will flourish.

[metal_head]

Yes, people will circumnavigate the tax, but not near enough people to take notice. 2dogs, it sounds to me like you've got a still in your bathroom rather than heading over to the liquor store. Personally, I only smoked cigarettes for about five years and I still smoke cigars, but I don't buy tobacco off the streets and roll up a fat cigar with my deadbolt locked and incense burning. It's easier to pay the tax, except for Cuban cigars. That damn pre-embargo tobacco is expensive! I'd rather put a few boxes in my checked luggage when I travel out of the country.

Can't you just imagine walking into Valero and buying a pack of Marlborough Greens for $10 a pack, or even going to Cigar Cigar and buying the fine Cohiba Green for a higher price? If the Federal and State Government taxed and regulated it, millions would be added to the budget. Period.

Also, it WOULD have to be regulated. An enforcement similar to alcohol would suffice.

This alone will not turn the economy around, but in addition to added revenue, you'll have a more relaxed and calm society.;)

I do agree with you that the balls of the Tenth Ammendment being castrated. Both Democrats and Republicans alike can support the strong Federal Government. Obama wants the bipartisan government. Shouldn't he know that a centralized Federal Government is probably the biggest thing both parties agree on? He supports a strong Federal Government. Aren't the democrats supposed to push for more of the States' involvement and less of a centralized Federal Government?

[metal_head]

Another thought about fixing the economy is why doesn't the Federal Government reduce their nuclear arms and convert some of the weapon's grade plutonium and uranium to a mixed oxide fuel and fund the nation's power supply to help stimulate the economy. Maybe it's the green tea I've been drinking, but with the Government supplying the nation with energy at a low cost that cost them viturally nothing to supply, wouldn't that add millions more to the budget, as well as giving the taxpayers more in their pockets every month? I know the number of arms would be reduced at a time 2 wars are being fought, but how many bombs would it take to start nuclear winter?

[Guest 121818-1]

Dont get me wrong, I am not totally against taxes as they are a necessary evil that we are forced to accept. I am for less government intervention anc control of our personal lives. I believe that there must be some that have to object to new and or increased taxes or there will be no end to them. The point is to insure that when something is taxed it isnt taxed so heavily that it leads to the continuation of the criminal element through black,market enterprise.

mORE LATER.....

[bigtex]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (2Dogs @ Feb 26 2009, 07:10 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

Dont get me wrong, I am not totally against taxes as they are a necessary evil that we are forced to accept. I am for less government intervention anc control of our personal lives. I believe that there must be some that have to object to new and or increased taxes or there will be no end to them. The point is to insure that when something is taxed it isnt taxed so heavily that it leads to the continuation of the criminal element through black,market enterprise.

mORE LATER.....[/b]

You and I are in disagreement on the tax issue. I do not spend much time worrying about the level of taxes that I pay. I understand that we must pay our fair share for the goods and services that we have come to expect. Many of those services we take for granted with little thought about where the money came from. The only consideration would be if those services were no longer available. Since I do not fit into the $250k tax bracket (I wish I did), I do not see a significant difference in what I pay under a Republican or Democratic Administration. If I did, I would gladly pay a proportionately higher share of taxes.

With that said, I still do not understand the concept of giving tax breaks during a time of war. I suppose I am more of a "pay as you go" kinda guy. Asking our children and grandchildren to pay for our wars is foolish. A war should be a shared sacrifice. If I am not fighting the war, I should be paying my fair share of the cost for the war. While on the subject, I am in favor of our military personnel who have been put "in harm&#39;s way" not having to pay income taxes during the period of time that they are in a "war zone." The soldiers are the ones asked to make the ultimate sacrifice. The least we could do would be that they not have to share in the financial sacrifice, as well.

Just my 2 cents!

[Don T. Lukbak]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (bigtex @ Feb 26 2009, 07:50 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

With that said, I still do not understand the concept of giving tax breaks during a time of war. I suppose I am more of a "pay as you go" kinda guy. Asking our children and grandchildren to pay for our wars is foolish. A war should be a shared sacrifice. If I am not fighting the war, I should be paying my fair share of the cost for the war. While on the subject, I am in favor of our military personnel who have been put "in harm&#39;s way" not having to pay income taxes during the period of time that they are in a "war zone." The soldiers are the ones asked to make the ultimate sacrifice. The least we could do would be that they not have to share in the financial sacrifice, as well.

Just my 2 cents![/b]

I agree. All Americans, not just the heroic ones, need to participate and contribute to the effort in some way....even if all we old farts can do is hold the young warriors&#39; coats while they slug it out with the enemy.

But...as long as we have a tax on income, except for active duty military personnel, then every American with an income should pay at least some tax on it. Far too many "workers" have been exempted from paying income tax. They should have skin in the game just like the more productive members of society. Just like dog races; you put 2 bucks on a dog and all of a sudden you give a shit.

The signs are not encouraging: the nation&#39;s center of gravity appears to have shifted from New York to Washington. CEO&#39;s can&#39;t tell you what to do, but government functionaries sure as hell can.

don t

[Guest 121818-1]

What we really disagree on is what is a "fair" share. If you want to base your fair share on what you get from the government then the income tax system we have is slightly backwards in my estimation.
I really dont want to go there as those that use the most government services would pay the most and those that use less amounts should pay the least. Or in another thought if I provide employment and healthcare to X number of workers my taxes should be reduced, but I really dont think that is what would happen.

I work very hard and long hours and take financial risks to rpovide employment opportunities in order to be rewarded for my effort. I am a part of one of those small businesses that will see my taxes increased as a result of our Presidents spend thrift ways. I dont know where he is going to get the 5 or 6 trillion he will need to keep his promises that he made the other night.

Like I said, I really dont mind paying taxes as long as they are reasonable and the government is being a good steward of our money. It is our mioney after all. I also agree with you on "giving tax breaks"as I think that all taxes should be of a temporary basis and must be renewed with each new legislative session. I dont care if it is during a time of war ore a time of peace. I firmly agree with a pay as you go policy and that is why I believe that government has become way too big. Obama is taking out a mortage that we cant afford to pay just like the idiots that bought houses that they couldnt afford at some point in time the collapse will become final. I think that we will see another round of infalation that the government will not be able to hide or flim flam the numbers to make it appear that there is no inflation.

I dont think that a tax cut to some and a tax increase to others is really fair.
If you rob Paul to pay Peter you can always count on Peter&#39;s support.

So Bigtex are you a Peter?

[bigtex]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (2Dogs @ Feb 26 2009, 03:32 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

So Bigtex are you a Peter?[/b]

No! Are you?

[Dagny D.E.W.]

comments moved to my fav political site... back to just providing here...

[WTF]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (2Dogs @ Feb 26 2009, 03:32 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

I dont think that a tax cut to some and a tax increase to others is really fair.[/b]

Reagan lowered the tax rate on the wealthy.....he then made up for that loss in tax revenue by increasing Social Security Tax AND THEN raising the tax on a gallon of gasoline. In other words he lowered a Progressive tax and raised two Regressive taxes. Since that time the income and savings gap between the middle class and the wealthy has increased...just as you wouls expect if you lowered the tax on the wealthy and increased the tax on the middle class. The proff are in the numbers...no amount of lieing by Sean Hannity or Rush or Ann Couliter will change those facts. If more of you would look into the actual numbers you would not continue to believe the spin.

So he lowered the taxes on a group and raised it on another group. Did you have a problem with that?

Let&#39;s learn our history before we start making blanket statements.

Bloomberg reports that, according to recently released IRS data, “the average tax rate paid by the richest 400 Americans fell by a third to 17.2 percent through the first six years of the Bush administration and their average income doubled to $263.3 million.” Much of their income came from capital gains resulting from the Bush tax cuts:The drop from 2001’s tax rate of 22.9 percent was due largely to ex-President George W. Bush’s push to cut tax rates on most capital gains to 15 percent in 2003.

To be fair Clinton cut the rate the richest 400 paid in taxes from 30% to 22%. http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/0523-02.htm

Those are the facts...no spin.

[Guest 121818-1]

So you are saying that only one group had to pay the incresed taxes on gasoline, interesting. Hos did one group avoid paying the higher taxes on the gas.

When was it that the government decided that if you are retired but have too much income that you loose your SS benefits? I dont remeber when that penalty came into ellect.

Damn I still cant wrap my mind around how a group of people avoided the higher gasoline tax, maybe through public transportation yeah they got all them buses for the fat cats to ride in so they dont have to pay that higher gas tax. to me seems like a fair and equal way of taxing and it is totally voluntary. Like cigarette taxes are totally voluntary along with beer and mixed drinks and such. Not a real sound way to finance your government butthose are taxes that you can avoid.

I dont listen to Hannity, Rush, or Ann or any of the other talking heads.

Plan and simple and you dont have to be a member of mensa to recognize that if you increase the taxes for some and decrease the taxes for others and I am talking income taxes here this is not fair and equal.
But you whine yeah but they got more money and can afford to pay more, so in essence you think it is proper to take my money and give it to somebody else. If I took your money and gave it to my neighbors that live on the other side of the overpass you would want me put in jail for stealing your money.

Once again you rob from Paul to pay Dick you can always count on Dick&#39;s support.

The goal of the current administration is to increase the number od Dicks in the country. They keep taking Paul&#39;s money and it wont be long and this country will be even more full of limp Dicks looking for another handout and free ride and what is the government going to do when all of the Pauls are gone

[WTF]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (2Dogs @ Feb 27 2009, 03:46 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

Plan and simple and you dont have to be a member of mensa to recognize that if you increase the taxes for some and decrease the taxes for others and I am talking income taxes here this is not fair and equal.
But you whine yeah but they got more money and can afford to pay more, so in essence you think it is proper to take my money and give it to somebody else. If I took your money and gave it to my neighbors that live on the other side of the overpass you would want me put in jail for stealing your money.[/b]

Reagan shifted the tax burden from one group (the rich) to another(the middle class). That is a fact. You sure as hell do not have to be a Mensa to understand that as I can attest.

Reagan lowered the marginal tax rates on the top wage earners. And raised the SS cap and rate and increased the tax on gasoline.

So for example if you made a million bucks , he may have saved you 150k. His increases in SS and gas cost you 2-3k. Not a bad trade off. Meanwhile those two STEALTH taxes cost middle class taxpayers that same 2-3k. Thus he shifted the tax burden from one group (the rich) to another (the middle class).

He shifts the tax burden. Just exactly what you are bitching about. Obama&#39;s tax plan reverses that. Hell you should be proud! lol

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (2Dogs @ Feb 27 2009, 03:46 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

Damn I still cant wrap my mind around how a group of people avoided the higher gasoline tax, maybe through public transportation yeah they got all them buses for the fat cats to ride in so they dont have to pay that higher gas tax. to me seems like a fair and equal way of taxing and it is totally voluntary. Like cigarette taxes are totally voluntary along with beer and mixed drinks and such. Not a real sound way to finance your government butthose are taxes that you can avoid.[/b]

You can not avoid the tax on gasoline unless you never use public or private transportation. Those are all regressive taxes...regressive taxes effect the poor much more adversly than the rich. It is a larger % of their income. That is why it is called regressive. To counter that we have a PROGRESSIVE Federal tax system. This in turn makes it where most people that make between 40k and 500k pay around 40% of their money in total taxes.