Obama '08?

FIRST NECESSARY OBJECTIVE

Our first necessary objective is to elect people to Congress and the presidency who want to stop “excessive government spending and taxation.” Their mission must be to “secure public policy consistent with our three core values of Constitutionally Limited Government, Fiscal Responsibility and Free Markets.”

However, that first objective while necessary is not sufficient. Our next necessary objective is to convince these candidates to replace the current federal tax system with one that is necessary for achieving a government that actually shuns excessive government spending and taxation.

The tax system required is one which prohibits Congress and the President from buying their future elections from selected parts of their constituencies with government tax collections. A tax system which is necessary to achieve that is a tax system that taxes each kind of a thing that is taxed the same regardless of the quantity of those things taxed. Specifically, we must tax each and every dollar of a person’s annual gross income at the same rate (i.e., “uniform” rate) regardless of the size of that gross income.

Then if that uniform tax rate were for example 10%, a gross income of $1,000 would be taxed $100, and a gross income of $1,000 million would be taxed $100 million. There would be zero pay backs, zero deductions, zero exemptions, and zero double taxations (e.g., corporate and inheritance income taxes).

Not only would such a tax system make it difficult to buy votes with tax deductions, it would comply with the Constitution of the USA, Article I, Section 8, 1st paragraph, which says:
“The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;”

My disagreement with a consumption tax is that it effectively taxes high income individuals a lower percentage of their annual gross income than it does low income individuals. That is because higher income individuals invest--and do not consume-- a larger percentage of their income than do lower income individuals.

The so-called fair tax is worse. The low gross income individuals will not pay any tax--because of the fixed refund all tax payers would receive from the feds--and the middle gross income individuals will pay a greater percentage of their gross income than will the high income individuals. That of course is true because the high gross income individuals invest a higher percentage of their income than they spend, than do the middle gross income individuals. Worse yet, fed politicians could buy more low income votes by their manipulation of the size of that refund.

I did not lie. I expressed an opinion that lotteries are set up by the governments and that they are essentially regressive taxes, fleece the poor, and take out tens of billions of dollars out of the economy, money that they could better spend upon their families. Lotteries are scams run by the governments. Not only that, the states often spend the money on other stuff besides what they promised the people.

If you had any sense, you know what I said is no lie, but it is an accurate and very evidenced opinion. All you have to do is look up the data.

Folks, these are the types of lies that liberals accuse me of, which only proves their own stupidity and naivity.

http://money.blogs.time.com/2009/06/16/qa-with-the-lottery-wars-author-matthew-sweeney/
"As a tax item, the lotteries are regressive. Much of the money comes, voluntarily, from lower income and less educated families and is distributed to the whole of the state without regard for the source of the revenue."

You are unable to defend yourself. You never remember what you post.

Are you aware of how many lies there are? Omission is a form of lying.

Take a few breaths before you launch into your replies, h2oman. Your writing will improve and you'll be able to wow us with your thought processes.

You've lied again to cover one of your lies. You tried to blame this all on liberals, as if even the dumbest conservative would fall for such faulty reasoning.

Oh wait, h2oman fell for it.

If it's so bad why were George Washington, B Franklin and John Hancock all big supporters of lotteries. There were very common back then and it was considered one's civic duty to support them. The proceeds helped build many a struggling colony.

But I can see your point. Now, they are just cash cows for liberals to spread around to their friends.

Oh, why din you forget to include casinos in your discussion?

JTT, But you are ignorant of the fact that no conservative/republican goes to those casinos to gamble. That's a no-no edict by the republican party.

They must go to see Johnny Winter perform.

Thanks for filling me in on that, CI.

I knew that the Republican Party had said that it was okay for them to go to casinos to play footsie in the bathroom stalls.

In the past 50 years that I have observed politiics, I have yet to observe conservatives intead of liberals promote lotteries or gambling to be run by governments. I won't say it hasn't happened, but I am pretty sure it has been Democrats in both Oklahoma and Colorado, two states I am particularly aware of, that had Democrats push them into being. So my reasoning is not faulty at all, it is based upon pretty sound historical recollection of political agendas. Lotteries are sold as an agenda to raise money for states with the implication that it will cost the people little or nothing.
Of course it would be too much to ask of you to provide evidence for that, I suppose, JTT?
That is true to an extent. It is a way to extract money as a pseudo tax, without admitting it is a tax, usually very regressive and most burdensome on those that can least afford it. Look, if there are to be lotteries, I guess I can accept the idiots that are dumb enough to play them, but at least I do not think our governments should be the ones to do it. That is not a proper function of government.
I did not talk about that much now, but that is a case of pure and unadulterated corruption, probably mostly run by the mob. In my opinion, if anyone likes to go to Vegas to gamble, it would be easier for them to simply wear a shirt with the saying stamped on their back, that says "I AM AN IDIOT." That would accomplish the same goal in quicker and cheaper fashion. Why would anyone wish to go throw their money down a rathole, with the hope to fish only a portion of it out? It makes no sense. And the people at the bottom of the hole collecting the money are the dregs of society. Why would anyone do that? I think it must be just basic stupidity. I've known a few people that are hooked on it, but it is their personal problem, not mine. I just do not believe our government should sanction an activity that is highly detrimental to society. I can tolerate casino gambling more than I can lotteries however, because it is at least not our governments that are directly involved.

Essentially, lotteries and gambling are based upon one principle, to win something for nothing, to get something for nothing. And that is the modern philosophy of liberalism, so why wouldn't you expect the liberals to be the primary force behind their existence? Actually the modern Democratic Party has the same philodophy, which is "something for nothing."

The gambling vice is a huge impact upon the economy.
http://nolotto.faithweb.com/history.html
"1996 President Clinton signed H.R. 497, the National Gambling Impact & Policy Commission Act to investigate gambling in America. Only Hawaii and Utah prohibited all forms of gambling. 37 states and D.C. run state lotteries. 28 states allow casinos. Gamblers legally bet over $586 billion annually."

okie, Answer me one question; do republicans gamble? If you're up to it, please also answer the following: Do republicans commit crimes of sex? Do republicans commit crimes in business? Do republicans drink alcoholic beverages? Do republicans break traffic laws?

Are all republicans angels?

Do republican presidents have interns blow them in the oval office?

1.) You have been proven repeatedly to not know what you are talking about and to be a poor observer.

2.) You are by nature a yellow journalist who starts from his biases and is doomed to never see beyond his biases.

3.) You can not convince me that the no conservatives ever buy lottery tickets.

4.) The horse died. Stop beating it.

As a young woman, I found the more conservative a man's politics were, the more sexually aggressive he was.

Is this why you had the changes made?

There's the problem, Okie. You think that your "recollections" of things historical are in any way shape or form sound. History isn't based on recollections of things that people want to be true.

You are so blinded by so much crap that you can't think straight. You are caught in hypocrisy after hypocrisy, lie after lie solely because of your blind dedication to conservative "principles".

You spew a lot of personal crap, but you don't actually say much. Do you just love to hear yourself type or do you honestly believe this is political debate?

That's not addressing the issue, Ren. In that other thread you were big on that, now not so much.

Do you think that personal recollections are a viable way to discover the truth?

"personal crap"; it's simply the crap you and others spew coming home to rest.

Okay. Go for it. Give me the secret to life, liberty and happiness.

You know that's just another deception on your part, Ren.

Life, Liberty and Happiness are old hat... according to PrezBO it's all about Fairness.