Some political ramplings....

by logansrun 28 Replies latest social current

  • Yerusalyim

    Bush charged no one, the DoD did. I think the issue was taken care of, regulatroy glich...when I go to the military hospital I have to pay for my meals...about $9 a day, because I receive about $270 a month for food.

    Charging for medical care? Care to expand on that thought?

    Have a public service draft for young people who don't have extenuating circumstances (which would be the majority). I think that would go a long way towards instilling compassion and community responsibility in young people. And the public would benefit from this service. What more could you ask for! Let's do this for those that don't go to college, military, or get a full time job. Also, let's have a WPA type program instead of government handouts for welfare.

    Legalize and regulate marijuana, maybe de-criminalize possession of other drugs.

    Put our enormous prison population to work. Let them labor their way through their terms. AMEN!

  • logansrun
    America was built on immigration -- stopping it would be crazy

    And the Catholic Church was built on the blood of the innocent, your point is? Just because something was good in the past doesn't mean it is so today. We have too many people in this country....way too many! Stopping all immigration -- for a time, perhaps -- would mean: 1) Saving gobs of money by minimalizing the INS and not having to pay them subsidies. 2) We can't even employ everyone we have, do we need more? 3) Sorry to say, but it wasn't third-generation Italians who bombed the WTC. B.

  • Aztec


    Defense has enough money? Nope, we're still under paid, and while it's improving there are some significant financial issues in the military re Logistics.

    Defense does have enough money. It's the servicemen who are underpaid. It would be better if they spent more of their budget on salaries and benefits for the people of the military. My brother in law struggled with a family of four.

    Bradley, we'll turn you into a good little pinko commie yet. If you don't like the television in the US you should come up to Canada sometime. We have a channel called SexTV. Of course there is always my personal favorites the NHL station and BBC Canada.


  • logansrun

    Another thing:

    Give people the right to invest some of their social-security money in personal retirement accounts.

    I guess what I'm saying is take the best of the liberal and conservative ideas and stop the status quo in Washington.


  • logansrun


    What do you make of these problems with the "flat-tax"? From

    Flat Tax Fiasco

    by Douglas Dunn

    Copyright (c) 1998, 2002 Douglas Dunn / Word Wizards communications -- all rights reserved

    The simplistic "flat tax" idea is once again rearing its ugly head. In the U.S. Senate, Arlen Specter proposed a flat 20% tax on earned income (working people's wages), from which rich people's unearned income (capital gains, interest and dividends) would be exempt. Congressman Dick Armey supports similar legislation in the House. Former presidential candidate Steve Forbes (who has exhibited virtually no entrepreneurial innovation in his life and became wealthy by inheriting his late father's publishing empire) made as a centerpiece of his failed campaigns a flat tax scheme that salutes the idle rich (as distinguished from hard-working innovators or entrepreneurs who actually earned their wealth) by exempting UNEARNED income gained as a return on investment (not merely protecting the value of the principal, but allowing those who gain wealth without working for it to avoid taxes while those who work hard for what they gain pay all the taxes). Since Forbes' plan reduces taxes on the poorest and especially favors the wealthy, but is supposed to be revenue-neutral (no loss of incoming tax revenues) once again it means the middle class working people would be the ones squeezed to make up for benefits to the rich.

    In California, former Assemblyman Howard Kaloogian teamed up (unsuccessfully) with Arthur Laffer and others to introduce a similar proposal for our state. Laffer is the economics guru who inspired Ronald Reagan's "supply side economics." Starting Laffer's theories on cutting marginal tax rates on the highest incomes, Reagan developed a plan to balance the budget by cutting taxes for rich people while increasing spending, resulting in all-time record deficits paid for by the middle class and future generations, and which George Bush (senior) labeled "Voodoo Economics" when he first heard about it in 1980. The essence of Reagan's "tax cuts," which Laffer engineered, was to reduce the progressive character of federal taxes by eliminating the highest tax brackets. Middle-class and low-income working people never saw any substantial difference in their taxes.

    Flat Tax Frauds

    All of the various proposals (Specter, Armey, Forbes, Kaloogian) are fraudulent. None of them is a true "flat tax." In actuality, each of these proposals recognizes the need for progressivity (the differing relative value of dollars at differing income levels, as discussed below) by allowing a primary exemption -- that no tax will be assessed against a primary layer of income. This creates a "progressive" system with two tax brackets: zero and the top rate. Allowing this primary exemption acknowledges the need to distinguish between the differing levels of marginal utility of money, but goes from one extreme, a "zero" rate, all the way to the other extreme of the top rate in one single jump. Since they have acknowledged the need for at least one level of graduation, it makes sense to phase it in through gradual layers of progressivity, as was done during the prosperous era of the 1950s and 1960s.

    Proponents of these "flat" taxes love to point out that it is unfair to charge some people a different rate than others. But under their proposals, some people would pay no tax at all and others would pay the full rate. This is supposed to be more fair?

    Problems with a flat tax

    The notion of a flat tax does have a certain simplistic, egalitarian appeal. But it has three main flaws: 1) It seeks to improve something that is already completely equal; 2) It forces middle-class taxpayers to subsidize the wealthy (especially those incarnations such as Forbes' that exempt "unearned" income such as the interest on his invested inheritance, so that working people would support the idle rich); and, 3) It confuses much-needed tax reform and tax simplification in defining taxable income with the unrelated issue of whether the rate applied to that income is flat or graduated. Anyone who wants to support a flat tax better run the numbers first and see how much more they're going to pay!

    A lot of people don't understand graduated taxes. They think if you make more money you pay a higher rate on your entire earnings, which seems unfair.

    Graduated progressive taxes do treat all taxpayers equally. Every taxpayer pays the same rate on equivalent layers of income. People in higher brackets don't pay the higher rate on their entire income, only on the portions of income in the higher layers of marginal income. People, not dollars, are treated equally.

  • stillajwexelder

    Legalize and regulate marijuana, de-criminalize possession of other drugs. Put our enormous prison population to work. Let them labor their way through their terms.

    Agree with these - I would also decriminalize prostitution - -so the drug pushers/gangsters/pimps etc did not make as much money

  • logansrun

    The thing you have to keep in mind with legalizing drugs, prostitution, etc. is that you need regulation to go along with legalization. Yeah, I think that a woman who wants to sell her body should have that choice, but I wouldn't exactly want a house of ill-repute to open in my neighborhood.

    Actually, I wouldn't want them in any neighborhood. Put them out in the boonies away from everybody. If you really want it badly enough, you'll come. (no pun intended)


  • stillajwexelder

    2) We can't even employ everyone we have, do we need more? There are just too many jobs that Americans do not want to do - so the US employs Mexicans etc

  • logansrun
    There are just too many jobs that Americans do not want to do - so the US employs Mexicans etc

    ...and those same Mexicans take funding in the form of welfare and social services and, I hate to say it, prison dollars. Why not just eliminate those jobs or increase the salary to entice who we already have. Bradley NOTE: I'm not a racist. I don't even believe in race. Some people have even called me a Latino-phile.

  • logansrun

    Although I don't think the Federal government should mandate this, I do think that local governments would be wise to:

    1) Reward good grades and behavior with drivers licenses. No diploma, no license -- at least not till you pass a certain age. Getting in trouble in school or with the authorities? You can kiss your driving priveleges goodbye.

    2) Have a maximum driving age. We have a minimum driving age for safety reasons the same should be true with senior citizens. Sorry, I've seen too many grandma's endanger people with her incompetency.


Share this