AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

@plainoldme,

plainoldme wrote:

I detest TurboTax.

Why? Because it is made by a company that makes a profit, ha ha? I used to do taxes by hand, and it worked fine, but I have used Taxcut or Turbotax for years, and they work fairly well, kind of guides you through the process. I usually know what the next step will be anyway, but it lays it out for you and gives one a further degree of confidence in the completion of the return. I also think Taxcut or Turbotax work with the IRS to coordinate the best programming into their software, so that the IRS probably likes to receive returns done with the software, it may even cut down on the threat of audits, but I am not sure about that.

Anyway, I see no reason to "hate" Turbotax. It is a completely efficient way to do your taxes, pom, so get over your hesitance to enter the 21st century.

2 Replies

@okie,

I felt I had no control over the process . . . no idea what was going on. Besides, I love pencil and paper things.

1 Reply

@plainoldme,

Just curious, do you use electronic calculators? They also take away pencil and paper and your control over the mathematical calculation.

1 Reply

@okie,

Sometimes, but when I taught math to SPED students, I discouraged the use of calculators. Learning the multiplication tables is essential. When I teach people whose first language is not English, I encourage them to use a paper dictionary as it too easy to use the wrong word if ones English is limited and one spells in Spanglish or a Thai-English hybrid.

Mental exercise does raise the IQ.

0 Replies

@okie,

i always do my mothers taxes, in the old days when i did them by hand, she always got more back then i asked for (same for my return), the first time i used a tax program, i also did it by hand, the tax program came up with a higher refund

it's just so much easier to punch in the numbers, hit send and get a refund in about a week and a half (in canada anyway)

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

Because it COMPELS Americans to buy health insurance, Obamacare is unconstitutional.

Americans can freely choose to buy A GREAT MANY THINGS without their choice OF WHICH THINGS THEY MUST CHOOSE being regulated by the federal government. AMONG THEIR CHOICES NOT REGULATED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ARE CHOICES OF foods, clothes, shelters, vehicles, books, exercises, insurances, entertainments, investments, employers, employees ...

The Constitution does not grant Congress and/or the President the power to COMPEL Americans to buy health insurance from anyone. If Americans choose not to buy health insurance and instead pay their own medical bills directly, that is their privilege, since that choice in no way whatsoever deprives anyone OF THEIR CHOICES OF HEALTH INSURANCE.

2 Replies

@ican711nm,

And here I thought that food was regulated by the FDA AND local state departments of safety! Yet here you claim that the purchase of food is unregulated.

You also seem to claim that clothing, shelter, and vehicles are unregulated by the government as well. This is so farcical, I wonder if it is a joke on your part.

All the things you list are regulated.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@ican711nm,

Ican- You may be right, however, my reading of comments from various Constitutional Scholars show that most of them do not think that the Supreme Court will find that the suit brought forward by at least thirteen Attorney Generals and, as time goes on, perhaps more, will be successful. Even so, such a protracted battle from these AG's and their governors, will serve to keep Obamacare and its many distortions and arrogances, in the minds of the voters. What you should do, Ican, if you have time, is to go to Real Clear Politics to read the polls on Obama and some of the Democratic Senator Incumbents. You will find, that, as of the present, the polls predict disaster for most of the Democratic incumbent Senators.

Only 217 days to go to Nov, 2nd!!

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Of course, they are regulated under the Commerce clause, when they are interstate matters but Congress cannot regulate matters, such as gun manufacture, if it is done completely within a state. State's Rights, you know--but I am sure at Berkeley, they don't even know what a State is!

Note:
Montana & Texas to manufacture its own guns and tell the feds to shove it concerning registration since they will be marked "made in Montana" "made in Texas" for in state use only

The Kansas City Star is reporting that the State could be setting itself up for a court battle after Governor Bill Schweitzer, a Democrat, signed HB246 into law:

Montana is trying to trigger a battle over gun control - and perhaps make a larger point about what many folks in this ruggedly independent state regard as a meddlesome federal government.

In a bill passed by the Legislature earlier this month, the state is asserting that guns manufactured in Montana and sold in Montana to people who intend to keep their weapons in Montana are exempt from federal gun registration, background check and dealer-licensing rules because no state lines are crossed.

That notion is all but certain to be tested in court. …

…much bigger prey lies in Montana’s sights: a legal showdown over how far the federal government’s regulatory authority extends.

“It’s a gun bill, but it’s another way of demonstrating the sovereignty of the state of Montana,” said Democratic Gov. Brian Schweitzer, who signed the bill. …

Under the new law, guns intended only for Montana would be stamped “Made in Montana.” The drafters of the law hope to set off a legal battle with a simple Montana-made youth-model single-shot, bolt-action .22 rifle. They plan to find a “squeaky clean” Montanan who wants to send a note to the ATF threatening to build and sell about 20 such rifles without federal dealership licensing.

If the ATF tells them it’s illegal, they will sue and take the case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, if they can.

Similar measures have also been introduced in Texas and Alaska. …

In a 2005 case, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the enforcement of federal laws against marijuana in California, even if the drug is for medical purposes and is grown and used within the state. The court found that since marijuana produced in California is essentially indistinguishable from pot grown outside the state, the federal government must have the authority to regulate both to enforce national drug laws.

Randy Barnett, the lawyer and constitutional scholar who represented the plaintiff in the California case, said that Montana could argue that its “Made in Montana”-stamped guns are unique and sufficiently segregated as to lie outside federal regulation. …

“Firearms are inextricably linked to the history and culture of Montana, and I’d like to support that,” said Montana state Rep. Joel Boniek, the bill’s sponsor. “But I want to point out that the issue here is not about firearms. It’s about state rights.”

Texas

Via TylerPaper.com, State Representative Leo Berman had introduced HB1863 earlier this year, “[r]elating to exempting the intrastate manufacture of a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition from federal regulation”:

A bill by state Rep. Leo Berman exempting Texas-made firearms, gun accessories and ammunition sold within the state from federal regulation and law " including registration " was heard in a House committee on Monday.

The bill also provides for the Texas Attorney General’s office to defend Texans who run afoul of the federal government because of this law.

Berman, a Tyler Republican who has pushed several “states’ rights” measures this legislative session, said his bill would affect more than 300 manufacturers in the state.

“Under the 9th and 10th Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, states have responsibility for regulating intrastate commerce,” Berman said. “The federal government has no role.” …

“With the appointment of Eric Holder as U.S. attorney general, we have the most anti-Second Amendment attorney general in the history of the nation,” Berman said. “What we’re saying with this is there are some guns not subject to federal regulation. We have guns and gun accessories and ammunition here that are not subject to their regulation.”

Berman said the bill has the support of the National Rifle Association and the Texas State Rifle Association. Contacted on Monday, the Texas State Rifle Association’s Alice Tripp did not comment.

Berman said his bill could also spark economic development.

“This gun bill will invite new industry into Texas, that will take advantage of intra-state commerce,” Berman said. “We’re talking about gun manufacturers, gun accessory manufacturers, and ammunition reloaders.”

Montana passed a similar bill earlier this month, and a court challenge is expected when the law goes into effect in October. …

Tyler attorney and gun rights advocate Sean Healy said Berman’s effort is commendable.

“I applaud Leo’s effort to put the federal government in its place,” Healy said. “Americans have been conditioned for decades to accept Washington’s meddling in their lives. We have grown complacent, and we accept most new restrictions without batting an eye. As a result, Washington has gotten used to doing whatever it wants.”

That applies to sweeping federal regulation of firearms, he added.

“I think Leo is right about the Constitution,” he said. “The founders intended for the federal government to have the powers specifically given to it in the Constitution, and the states and the people to keep the power to do everything else.”

Still, the bill could end up putting the state on a collision course with the federal courts.

“The only problem I see with Leo’s bill is the provisions requiring the state to pay for its citizens to fight the federal government,” Healy said. “That could cost the taxpayers a lot of money fighting a losing battle.”

Berman’s bill was left pending in committee, as is usual following committee hearings. It could be voted on as soon as next week.

On Wednesday, another House committee will hear a bill by Berman that would place an 8 percent surcharge on all money wired by illegal immigrants to Mexico and Central and South America. Berman said the bill would generate $480 million yearly. The revenue would be earmarked for hospitals, which he says bear the burden of providing health care for uninsured illegal immigrants and for border security.

Those of you who are Second Amendment advocates will recall the recent precedent-setting case, District of Columbia v. Heller. Here is a synopsis of what the decision meant:

In a 5-4 decision, the Court held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. The Court based its holding on the text of the Second Amendment, as well as applicable language in state constitutions adopted soon after the Second Amendment. Justice Antonin Scalia delivered the opinion of the Court. Justices John Paul Stevens and Stephen Breyer filed dissenting opinions, each joined by the other as well as Justices David Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Justice Stevens argued that the Second Amendment only protects the rights of individuals to bear arms as part of a well-regulated state militia, not for other purposes even if they are lawful. Justice Breyer agreed with Stevens’ argument but also stated that even if possession were to be allowed for other reasons, any law regulating the use of firearms would have to be “unreasonable or inappropriate” to violate the Second Amendment. In Breyer’s view, the D.C. laws at issue in this case were both reasonable and appropriate.

Should any of these bills be taken to court, the issue then becomes whether or not the gun rights advocates can make a persuasive case that if a weapon or ammunition created in Montana or Texas (or wherever) is specifically denoted (construed) to be used in an intrastate fashion, then the above case fits for the purposes of both individual and private group (e.g.: militia) use.

So, one could say that the bigger issue of whether or not an individual can “keep and bear arms” has obviously been decided. What’s left in the challenge is whether or not those against these State measures can reasonably show that such implements are intended to be used in an interstate, but not an intrastate, fashion.

I look forward to watching this play out in the Judiciary.

************************************************************************

Ican- I think Cyclops is wasting his tuition. He doesn't seem to know very much!
Share

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

I wrote:
AMONG THEIR CHOICES NOT REGULATED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ARE CHOICES OF foods, clothes, shelters, vehicles, books, exercises, insurances, entertainments, investments, employers, employees ...

Cycloptichorn wrote:
"Yet here you claim that the purchase of food is unregulated. You also seem to claim that clothing, shelter, and vehicles are unregulated by the government as well."

I did not write that these items were unregulated by the federal government. I wrote that which of these federal regulated items if any we can CHOOSE to purchase is not regulated by the federal government.

In particular, prior to Obama Healthcare, we were free to CHOOSE which if any medical insurance we wanted and not be forced to purchase something we do not want.

3 Replies

@ican711nm,

Quote:

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=19149&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=DPD
NUCLEAR POWER DEVELOPMENT: REMOVING ROADBLOCKS
President Obama wants to triple the amount of loans the federal government guarantees in order to jumpstart seven to 10 new nuclear power projects over the next decade. However, until the government meets its legal obligation to provide storage for spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste, only a few new nuclear reactors are likely to be built, says H. Sterling Burnett, senior fellow with the National Center for Policy Analysis.

With waste building up, Congress passed the 1982 Nuclear Waste Policy Act (amended in 1988) to ensure proper long-term storage. The act required the U.S. Department of Energy to develop and maintain an underground storage facility for nuclear waste.

The Energy Department determined that Yucca Mountain, Nevada, was a satisfactory storage place. However, despite scientific evidence that Yucca Mountain is safe, lawsuits and political wrangling have prevented use of the site as a storage facility.

The uranium in spent nuclear fuel rods can be reprocessed into new fuel. Most of the nuclear waste disposal problem would be eliminated if the government ended its prohibition on recycling. In addition, recycling used fuel rods would provide a nearly endless source of domestic energy. The United States has abundant uranium (raw nuclear fuel) sources. Indeed, at current levels of use, accessible uranium reserves can provide an estimated 300-year worldwide supply of fuel, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency.

One kilogram of natural uranium contains as much energy as 38.5 tons of coal, but only about 3 percent of that energy is utilized in conventional reactors.
Thus, recycling existing and future spent fuel rods would provide a virtually unlimited supply of nuclear fuel.
Even greater nuclear fuel supplies can be liberated from more than 15,000 plutonium pits removed from dismantled U.S. and Soviet nuclear weapons.
Even with recycling, nuclear energy production will create radioactive waste. The Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) near Carlsbad, New Mexico, has been operating for more than nine years. More than 100,000 containers of radioactive material -- equivalent to about 280,000 55-gallon drums -- have been stored in a massive bedded (layered) salt deposit there. The salt in the formation is self-sealing: It flows like sand to fill in, or seal, the disposal chambers completely. The location is remote, but has sufficient infrastructure for ongoing disposal operations. WIPP has been extensively monitored for human health and environmental risks for 15 years, including six years before operations began. The Carlsbad Environmental Monitoring and Research Center at New Mexico State University reported that from 1993 to the present there has been no evidence of an increase in contaminants in the ground, air or water near WIPP.

It would also dramatically increase domestic energy supplies. With or without recycling, sites like WIPP offer a safe, ready solution, says Burnett.

Source: H. Sterling Burnett, "Nuclear Power Development: Removing Roadblocks," National Center for Policy Analysis, Brief Analysis No. 700, March 29, 2010.

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

Quote:

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=19150&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=DPD
NUCLEAR POWER DEVELOPMENT: REMOVING ROADBLOCKS
President Obama wants to triple the amount of loans the federal government guarantees in order to jumpstart seven to 10 new nuclear power projects over the next decade. However, until the government meets its legal obligation to provide storage for spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste, only a few new nuclear reactors are likely to be built, says H. Sterling Burnett, senior fellow with the National Center for Policy Analysis.

With waste building up, Congress passed the 1982 Nuclear Waste Policy Act (amended in 1988) to ensure proper long-term storage. The act required the U.S. Department of Energy to develop and maintain an underground storage facility for nuclear waste.

The Energy Department determined that Yucca Mountain, Nevada, was a satisfactory storage place. However, despite scientific evidence that Yucca Mountain is safe, lawsuits and political wrangling have prevented use of the site as a storage facility.

The uranium in spent nuclear fuel rods can be reprocessed into new fuel. Most of the nuclear waste disposal problem would be eliminated if the government ended its prohibition on recycling. In addition, recycling used fuel rods would provide a nearly endless source of domestic energy. The United States has abundant uranium (raw nuclear fuel) sources. Indeed, at current levels of use, accessible uranium reserves can provide an estimated 300-year worldwide supply of fuel, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency.

One kilogram of natural uranium contains as much energy as 38.5 tons of coal, but only about 3 percent of that energy is utilized in conventional reactors.
Thus, recycling existing and future spent fuel rods would provide a virtually unlimited supply of nuclear fuel.
Even greater nuclear fuel supplies can be liberated from more than 15,000 plutonium pits removed from dismantled U.S. and Soviet nuclear weapons.
Even with recycling, nuclear energy production will create radioactive waste. The Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) near Carlsbad, New Mexico, has been operating for more than nine years. More than 100,000 containers of radioactive material -- equivalent to about 280,000 55-gallon drums -- have been stored in a massive bedded (layered) salt deposit there. The salt in the formation is self-sealing: It flows like sand to fill in, or seal, the disposal chambers completely. The location is remote, but has sufficient infrastructure for ongoing disposal operations. WIPP has been extensively monitored for human health and environmental risks for 15 years, including six years before operations began. The Carlsbad Environmental Monitoring and Research Center at New Mexico State University reported that from 1993 to the present there has been no evidence of an increase in contaminants in the ground, air or water near WIPP.

It would also dramatically increase domestic energy supplies. With or without recycling, sites like WIPP offer a safe, ready solution, says Burnett.

Source: H. Sterling Burnett, "Nuclear Power Development: Removing Roadblocks," National Center for Policy Analysis, Brief Analysis No. 700, March 29, 2010.

2 Replies

@ican711nm,

Quote:

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=19152&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=DPD
EUROPE'S CHOICE: GROWTH OR SAFETY NET
The economic turmoil the European Union is facing is a world away from the vision that accompanied the euro's launch in 1999. Then, champions of the common currency forecast a European Renaissance prompted by efforts to modernize inefficient welfare states and loosen overregulated markets.

A decade later, the euro zone is struggling to join the global economic recovery, says the Wall Street Journal.

Its 16 member nations face a stark choice:

They can spur economic growth across the region by following through on long-overdue pledges to trim benefits and free up labor markets.
Or, many economists say, they can face a decade of economic stagnation.
Countries across the zone lost dynamism during the common currency's first decade, with annualized growth of 1.7 percent from 2000 to 2008, down from 2 percent growth in the 1990s. The next decade could be worse: Higher public debts and a surge of retirees will push up taxes and weigh on companies and consumers.

But the appetite for structural overhaul is low among Europeans, who have long believed that capitalism should be tempered by generous state benefits and strong labor protections. Structural changes, however, are the last great hope in part because euro zone members have few other levers for lifting their economies:

Individual members can't tweak interest rates to encourage lending, because those policies are set by the zone's central bank.
The shared euro means countries don't have a sovereign currency to devalue, a move that would make exports cheaper and boost receipts abroad.
The remaining prescription, many economists say: chip away at the cherished "social model." That means limiting pensions and benefits to those who really need them, ensuring the able-bodied are working rather than living off the state, and eliminating business and labor laws that deter entrepreneurship and job creation.

Source: Marcus Walker and Alessandra Galloni, "Europe's Choice: Growth or Safety Net," Wall Street Journal, March 25, 2010.

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

I think that is one of the wisest decisions that President Obama has ever made. Nuclear Power does work in the USA. Indeed, the French who are as brilliant and shrewd as any country, get most of their electrical power from Nuclear Energy. It has been clearly shown that the new Nuclear Plants are practically impervious to any kind of accident since there are so many safeguards built in and since the processes used are much safer than any in the past. This way jobs will be created and the idiotic windmills which have no real way to send their wind energy to where it is needed will be phased out. Similarly with solar energy. If the sun does not shine, you are in trouble unless you have a very expensive source to store the energy.

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

Quote:

In particular, prior to Obama Healthcare, we were free to CHOOSE which if any medical insurance we wanted and not be forced to purchase something we do not want.

You shouldn't be free to do that, because the rest of us end up having to pay for your irresponsibility. See, the vast, vast majority of people simply can't afford to pay for their own health care out of pockets - and you can't be trusted to make that determination yourself, because the downside is once again ME paying for YOUR ASS.

Same as Social Security, Medicare, and car insurance. Mandated for a reason.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

Note:

Cyclops wrote:

You shouldn't be free to do that, because the rest of us end up having to pay for your irresponsibility. See, the vast, vast majority of people simply can't afford to pay for their own health care out of pockets - and you can't be trusted to make that determination yourself, because the downside is once again ME paying for YOUR ASS.
********************************************************************

That's correct. No one should pay for anyone else, as Cyclops said. But if I pay my taxes and they are used to cover "irresponsibles" am I not paying for someone's Anus? Yes, of course!

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Ican is all wet on that. Most health care choices were made by the employer. My kids and I bounced back and forth between health care providers as his INSURANCE changed.

Although my ex- has a doctorate in chemistry, he seems to have an auditory processing problem as whenever his employer switched INSURANCE and we had to CHANGE PROVIDERS, I would spend hours weeding through his misinformation.

What a hassle. Fortunately for us, we were able to bounce back and forth between two excellent clinics . . . one just two miles from us and the other seven miles away.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Think! Your argument is severely flawed!

I wrote:
In particular, prior to Obama Healthcare, we were free to CHOOSE which if any medical insurance we wanted and not be forced to purchase something we do not want.

you Cycloptichorn wrote:

You shouldn't be free to do that, because the rest of us end up having to pay for your irresponsibility. See, the vast, vast majority of people simply can't afford to pay for their own health care out of pockets - and you can't be trusted to make that determination yourself, because the downside is once again ME paying for YOUR ASS.

Same as Social Security, Medicare, and car insurance. Mandated for a reason.

Currently, everyone paying into social security is paying for everyone being paid by social security. An honest social security would not have its income paid into the federal general fund, but would buy for each payer US savings bonds--or equivalent--that were not cashable until one reaches retirement age and retires.

Medicare pays for 20% of the medical care costs and the private insurance one has pays rhe rest. I say it would be honest of you if you canceled your Medicare and paid that 20% yourself to avoid other people "paying for YOUR ASS."

The federal government pays up to a specified maximum, without additional charge, for everyone's bank account insurance, but thankfully not one's insurance--if any--for one's other investments.

One's Car(s), Truck(s), Airplane(s), Helicopter(s), Boat(s), Home(s), and Life insurance(s) are not provided and not required by the federal government. Except for state vehicle insurance mandates, one has the free CHOICE to buy or not buy one or more of these insurances from whatever insurance company one CHOOSES.

When the federal government buys health insurance for people who do not pay sufficient taxes to pay its cost, the rest of us pay for their "ASS."

It is theft by you to force those wealthier than you to pay for "YOUR ASS."

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

Your analysis is severely flawed. People don't have a choice to ignore their health care or choose not to get it, because nobody willingly dies or just gives up. They go to emergency rooms, where their treatment is very expensive - and we all pay for it in higher costs. There is no option to NOT have 'health insurance' in our modern market, because choosing not to be responsible in this manner actively harms everyone else, and you don't have the right to harm everyone else through your irresponsibility.

I would remind you that the mandate is not only legal and constitutional, it was originally a republican idea....

As you believe that all forms of taxation which do not favor the rich are essentially theft, I don't know why you think anyone would care what your position on what is and isn't 'theft' is. You clearly are out of step with the reality of our modern society.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@plainoldme,

plainoldme wrote:

Most health care choices were made by the employer.

When one is an employer, one makes that choice for one's self. Employees make that choice by their choice of who to work for: that is, for employers who pay for employee healthcare insurance, for employers who do not pay for employee healthcare insurance, or for oneself as self-employed.

1 Reply

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know