Robbie

That ain't true. They freakin' IMPEACHED Clinton!

And they "investigated" his WhiteWater dealings and threw his friends in jail (remember Ken Star the prosectutor)

The Republicans were merciless on Clinton. In my opinion it was a disgrace what they did to him.

Hauling the President in front of Congress and asking him if he fucked Monica Lewinsky. Knowing full well that every man on the planet is going to lie instead of get in trouble with their wife.

Then they impeached him for lying.

I remember very well what happened to Clinton. He was a great President...but by the time they got done with him, Al Gore wouldn't even let him help with his campaign in 2000 and he was asked to NOT speak at The Democratic National Convention that year. He was like poison at that time.

Obama is certainly no Clinton. I thought he was in 2008. But in my opinion he has been as ineffective as Jimmy Carter for this country.

__________________
-Robbie
ClaudiaMarie.Com

Paul Markham

I believe Bush inherited a balanced set of books and took it from there to a 10 trillion debt.

OK I'm not American, yet the point of Government spending effects most Western Countries.

Government spending is often borrowed money, Money businesses find hard to borrow. The money is injected into the economies of these countries. Providing jobs and business in so many sectors and parts of the country. It's now become a form of life support for a country.

So cut off the life support and then what. Where, how and effects will be the consequences?

Cutting taxes does not stimulate comparable growth. People work harder when they have to. Don't bring up the unemployed unless you can find jobs for all of them. Still there has to be some element of them contributing to society in return for society contributing to them.

Cutting taxes put more money in more pockets that have jobs, to spend in local shops on imported goods. not basic items they currently buy.

To cut taxes without raising debts, needs cuts in spending. Which means cuts in jobs, maybe your job or part of your income. As it comes ultimately from Government spending. Yes the guy who works in the local Government office, buys online porn from or via you and now can't, because he lost his job. Where ever that guy spends his money, they lose business. Which shrinks growth.

No "Cut taxes" propaganda slogans please and no stats from when the West exported more than it does today.

__________________



Blowout deal. 880 videos, 2,400 image sets, plus many RAW videos. $500.
PM me for a deal. Skype Paulmarkham70

Robbie

Or, they could allow the keystone pipeline to be built and create massive job growth.

Also one of the oil companies just found the biggest discovery of oil ever up North. If the govt. will get the hell out of the way and let them get it, we could become energy independent and create even more high paying jobs as well as lower energy costs which would bring down the price of everything and stimulate the economy. Which in turn brings in more revenues for the govt.

EVERYTHING depends on job growth. Without jobs, there is no tax base.

__________________
-Robbie
ClaudiaMarie.Com

keysync

I stopped reading at "OK I'm not American"

__________________

SuckOnThis

That is certainly true, and even with all that Clinton was able to get welfare reform passed, the minimum wage raised twice, get the tax rate raised, get the Brady Bill passed, get the Family and Medical Leave Act passed, along with a dozen of environmental laws passed and a host of others. There was not this 'resist everything so he fails' attitude going on.

galleryseek

It's tax payer money, which is stolen, not borrowed.

Who will pick the cotton if we end slavery? Who will keep our women in line if we stop beating them? Consequentialism. Go back to first principles and let's agree on a common axiom that violence or the threat of violence (coercion) against peaceful individuals is immoral. Once you understand that, consequences of ending immoral behavior are irrelevant.

Business owners employ people. That's the contribution to society that business owners make.

How about we remove taxation (hierarchical theft) all together? That would put more money in everyone's pocket, 20-40%+ more.

When you argue for taxation at any level, whether it be the man who owns multi billion dollar businesses or a family of 5 just barely making it, taxation is immoral.

I could go on with some consequentialist utilitarian arguments that show just how a society could work and function (and function much better mind you) without the forced extraction of money from its citizens, just as philosophers could point out exactly who would pick the cotton if slavery were ended, but it's pretty pointless.

SuckOnThis

Look, maybe you should get a little informed if you want to debate this. Bush's 2 wars, his medicaid drug program, and the 2009 stimulus package were all off the books and not paid or accounted for by his administration, they were passed off to Obama. You sound like a FOX News lunatic.

Robbie

That's because Clinton was a great president. He reached out and worked WITH the Republicans even though they were seriously trying to fuck him over.

Probably because he had executive experience as a governor.

Obama? To me he looks like what he is... a guy with no executive experience who was in the middle of his first term in the Senate.

He didn't know what to do and he seemed to let Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi shape policy while he was busy playing golf.

And of course Pelosi and Reid shut the Republicans out of everything. They literally did everything behind closed doors and shoved it down the Republicans throat. That caused a divide that is never going to be fixed while Reid is still Senate leader.

Clinton was very hands on. For instance...he sat down and met with Newt Gingrich constantly and more importantly...actually listened to Gingrich and hammered out REAL compromise that was effective and good for the country.

Obama just doesn't have those kind of leadership qualities.

Hell, even Bush was able to get the majority of Democrats in Congress to vote WITH him on most everything he wanted to do.

Obama had a window of opportunity in his first 2 years to really do great things. He fucked it all up.

__________________
-Robbie
ClaudiaMarie.Com

galleryseek

Minor correction here, they were passed onto us and our future children; just as many of what Obama has done will be passed onto future generations. Government has no money, they're a third party that takes from one group of individuals and gives to another group of individuals (some of those individuals being themselves.)

ThunderBalls

You forgot to include one of the biggest, the Bush tax cuts. Bushs fuzzy math in action, or should I say inaction.

keysync

So did we or did we not go from 10 billion to 16 billion in under 4 years?

__________________

Robbie

I just saw stats that said if the govt. just outright TOOK 100% of the top 1% of people in the U.S. it would add up to around 1.293 TRILLION dollars. Still short of even paying for THIS years deficit spending...much less the huge debt

40% of us pay 85% of all taxes already.

I don't think Bush allowing us to keep a little more of our own money is the problem. Yeah, politicians eager to spend your money would like you to think that.

The problem is how much the federal govt. keeps SPENDING.

People like to say: "Bush gave tax cuts and increased spending" That's true. He should NEVER have increased spending and we should never have invaded and occupied Iraq and Afghanistan (why are we still there?)

But this President is even worse. He knows we are 16 trillion in debt. And yet the federal govt. is spending billions of dollars every day (4 billion of it is DEFICIT spending every day)

I'd like to keep my money. Maybe use it to put my kids through college or take a nice vacation. Or even just bury it in the backyard. It's MY money.

But the feds don't see it that way. They see it as THEIR money to waste and spend invading other countries and/or fighting a "drug war". Or how about investigating Roger Clemens for doing steroids?

It's goddamn ridiculous.

__________________
-Robbie
ClaudiaMarie.Com

Paul Markham

[QUOTE=galleryseek;19115701]It's tax payer money, which is stolen, not borrowed.

So where is the borrowed money going?

WTF?

They also ship jobs overseas, automate and cut jobs.

No it wouldn't, go think it through.

So let's go back to the days of no taxes. Any idea when that was?

You could, next time try to make sense instead of nonsense.

Borrowing is to cut the gap between taxes and spending. Businessmen employ people as a last resort, because people are often the most expensive part of running a business. They automate, streamline or ship jobs overseas to cheaper countries.

Cutting taxes, takes money from one pocket and puts it into another pocket. It means people lose jobs and spend less.

Taxes in way form or another have been with us for millennium. Wasn't that the reason for the War of Independence, didn't Prince John raise English taxes to pay for Richard's Crusades? It goes way way back. Because it works.

I said think it through = No slogans.

Robbie's right they should allow the pipeline and get Government inspectors in to make doubly sure the pipeline doesn't end up creating what the lack of inspectors created in the Gulf of Mexico. GS, should we cut that spending to save you a few bucks? Add to it all the other benefits from taxes.

__________________



Blowout deal. 880 videos, 2,400 image sets, plus many RAW videos. $500.
PM me for a deal. Skype Paulmarkham70

FrozenJag

Or god forbid you actually reinvest in employees, equipment, technology, and truly stimulate the economy in a natural and effective way! That wouldnt make sense!

Captain Kawaii

You guys argue like our politicians actually have a say in it. Charming. When Exxon and the Fortune 100 fart, the walls in DC are covered in brown.

kane

On 12/21/08 a few weeks before Bush left the white house the national debt was at 10.7 trillion.

on 12/31/11 the national debt was 15.1 trillion

Estimates show the debt at about 15.9 trillion today.

In sheer numbers it is the largest increase ever, but it is not nearly the largest increase percentage wise.

To me the more telling number is the national debt and what percent of the GDP it makes up.

Right now it makes up 99% of the GDP. That is second worse all time behind Roosevelt's 121% during the depression.

The good news is that the trending numbers show the rate of growth for the national debt to be slowing and, in theory, if the economy continues to improve then the GDP will improve and the percentage of the GDP the debt makes up will fall back to a more normal number.

Robbie

I agree...from everything I have seen and heard economists discuss, the economy coming back to life and job growth are the keys to getting everything going again.

As for taxation...I don't believe that cutting them any further will "help" the economy.

BUT, I also don't see that raising them on wealthy people is going to help the economy either.

All it does if give the feds more money to waste.

Hell...the federal govt hasn't slowed down one bit in spending. Matter of fact, they argue over spending "cuts" that are really just talking about slowing down the rate of spending GROWTH. It's unreal.

__________________
-Robbie
ClaudiaMarie.Com

kane

I agree 100%. Taxing the rich won't fix the problem. Cutting taxes more isn't going to fix the problem either. The problem is the out of control spending.

The economy is slowly rebounding. Could it be doing better? I'm sure it could be. Could it be worse? Hell yeah. It took almost a decade and a major world war to get out of the depression so it is no shock to me that it is taking some time to get out of this recession especially when you consider that we had about five years worth of artificial housing bubble that finally burst in 2008. That means we will see five years worth of housing market decline, foreclosure and short sales so we likely still have another year of that type of bad news to deal with.

There are plenty of ways for the government to cut spending, but none of them really want to cut anything that could have an adverse affect on their district or state. Everyone wants to get in the ring and fight, but nobody is willing to get punched.

FrozenJag

theking

Many of the things that President Clinton signed into law (which includes welfare reform) was pushed by the Republicans. In fact many Democrats called President Clinton the best Republican president the Republicans ever had.

__________________
When you're running down my country hoss...you're walking on the fighting side of me!

FOR THE LYING LOWLIFE POSTING AS PATHFINDER...https://gfy.com/fucking-around-and-pr...athfinder.html

Relentless

The discussion of raising or lowering taxes is silly. A large number of poor people pay no taxes, and most wealthy people pay nowhere near the listed tax rate for their bracket. You can raise the top tax rate to 99% and Mitt Romney would still have paid under 15%, so would Warrent Buffet - because when they earn money it isn't 'income' most of the time. FICA ends at 110K, so anyone who earns 110K pays the same FICA contribution as anyone who earns 40M. Income tax is far from being the only taxes that people pay, and most of the other forms of taxation disproportionately hit the middle class, not people who are wealthy or poor.

Step 1 to fixing the economy is obliterating the phonebook sized tax regulations and simplifying it down to a small pamphlet the average citizen can fully comprehend, with bright line rules that can not be circumvented or loop-holed. Once you have everyone counting ALL of their income and paying taxes based on the listed rates... THEN you can talk about what the actual rates should be and if we should raise or lower them.

Incidentally if you did that, people like Romney would suddenly be paying 2x or 3x their taxes from 2011. People in the middle class would be paying the same exact amount they already are... and nobody's tax rate would rise or be lowered a single point. Go figure.

__________________


Website Secure | Engine Food
ICQ# 266-942-896

devilspost

__________________

Brothels and Escorts Worldwide.

GregE

Life really is stranger than fiction.

A few years back the Republicans were blathering on and on about Obama's supposed "Death Panels".

And now...

With Ryan's plan, they want to do him one better with what amounts to the economically induced euthanization of a significant number of American's elderly.

Think about it.

Ryan wants to end Medicare for future retirees (anyone currently 55 or younger) and thereby force them to remain on private insurance plans.

Meanwhile, the rest of the Republicans want to repeal Obama Care.

Your classic one-two punch.

Let's say that they succeed on both counts.

Ten years hence, any senior who ever had an untimely lapse in his or her insurance coverage and is subsequently faced with life threatening consequences from a pre-existing condition will be denied coverage and thereby culled from the herd in short order.

What we'll have here are virtual death panels running on autopilot that will save Uncle Sam billions.

It's a teabagger's wet dream.

__________________

50/50 lifetime payout - EXCLUSIVE CONTENT - CCBill
CLiCK here for your Bun Beating Dollars.

Paul Markham

Reagan cut taxes, and borrowed to bridge the gap.

GHW Bush promised to cut taxes, recession hit and he raised taxes. So borrowing slowed.

Clinton Raised taxes and balanced the books.

GW Bush cut taxes and went on a huge spending spree, paid for by borrowing.

Obama is in the toilet, put there by the lack of Government control on Gambling. Call it what you like, we know what it was.

Governments should spend/invest on infrastructure to go forward. Moon project shows what can be achieved. Mars will do the same. So to go further what's needed?

Scientists, engineers, research, in fields of tomorrow. So spending on education is an absolute must. No bright kid able to perform in disciplines required for tomorrow should be paying to go to college. Fuck giving athletes a free education, we don't need more line backers.

Also deprived areas. If we are to break the cycle of unemployment and all else that goes on in areas of of need. We need to educate the cycle out of them.

Work, no person should be under utilised. Even the unemployed can give to society.

Health. A healthy nation is a strong nation.

Infrastructure of the world around you. The Gulf spill happened because of a lack of inspectors. The New Orleans disaster was down to poor levies. Or. The Hoover Dam provide power for public and private utilities in Nevada, Arizona, and California. Plus acts as a reservoir.

Government spending. So many different takes on it I went here. http://www.cbo.gov/publication/42636

See what's wrong? The US is spending more than it's earning and borrowing to make up the gap. It like so many places are running on debt. Anyone who thinks cutting taxes and not cutting spending, needs to butt out. Anyone who thinks cutting taxes stimulates growth like it did before we imported more than we exported, needs to butt out as well. Because they have no proof that works today.

Here's a tax cut that will reduce spending. Farm Subsidies.

So import cheaper food from abroad or pass on the extra cost to consumers?

Stop letting greed rule your thinking.

__________________



Blowout deal. 880 videos, 2,400 image sets, plus many RAW videos. $500.
PM me for a deal. Skype Paulmarkham70

kane

Never mind an untimely lapse, it will happen to just about any retired person. When most people retire the company that they retire from doesn't offer them health insurance for the rest of their lives. There are some that do, but most don't. So those people will have to go out on the open market and buy their own. Ryan's plan is to give people vouchers that they can use to buy this insurance with. He gives no details of how much these vouchers would be worth. If Obamacare is repealed along with these changed to Medicare then any retiree with a pre-existing condition will have a hell of time getting any kind of insurance. Most will be flat out denied, or they will be charged so much they can't afford it, or they will only be able to get insurance that doesn't cover their pre-existing conditions.

Joshua G

yeah these threads always descend to the same old political arguments. reagan, clinton, who spent the most bla bla bla.

if this were 2000, & the last 12 years didnt happen, i would think this romney/ryan ticket is a wet dream.

But thanks to bush, cheney, & fox news, i know better then to believe a word they say.

I really wish obama made at least symbolic efforts to bring the budget into balance. brushing off the recommendations of his own deficit reduction committee made me conclude obama is in wall streets back pocket. all these deficits just benefit banks & health companies, public employee unions & the military industrial complex. everyone who lines our pols pockets with cash.

there is really nobody to vote for. just a choice between bland & boring.

GregE

Good points one and all.

Of course the vouchers will cover only a portion of the actual premiums and you can bet the house that they won't even come close to keeping pace with increasing premiums.

And yeah, health insurance that doesn't cover pre-existing conditions is utterly pointless.

It's like I said, Ryan's plan accomplishes for real that which Palin's fictitious death panels supposedly would.

__________________

50/50 lifetime payout - EXCLUSIVE CONTENT - CCBill
CLiCK here for your Bun Beating Dollars.

Sunny Day

No

Actually you can run for President & congress. You win both you take take the higher office.Then the state has rules of another election or their is an appointment. Each state has different rules.

tony286

It had nothing to do with Harry or nancy. The rights mission was to make Obama a one term term president. They are for something he agrees then they are against it. Holding up the most non partisan appointments. Locking up the senate.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...f0RU_blog.html

And Robbie, Obama has given u multiple tax breaks since he came it office. The stimulus was one third tax breaks. That's what the right wanted and they voted against it anyway.

DTK

This.

Digging out of a calamity like the Great Recession takes a very, very, long time.

Meanwhile, in fantasy land, Faux News and the radio screamers were blaming the shit economy on Obama from practically the day he took office.

__________________
Arguing whether the Democratic or Republican party is better is like debating which steaming pile of shit is slightly less stinky.

Sunny Day

Paul people give you grief here all the time, but for a guy from Europe, you got this right.
Worst was things like the Savings & Loan nightmare where the government took over their loans and mortgages. Even profitable loans were foreclosed and sold off for 10 cents on the dollar. Thank you Reagan for the financial mess. Thank you Nixon for extending the Viet Nam war an extra 8 years. Thank you McCarthy for those "300 Communist"s in the State Department. Thank you Calvin Coolidge & Herbert Hoover giving us the Great Depression. See the trend here? All Republicans.

mikesinner

technically no. it's immoral.

You work for your money, you should not have to give it to the government so they can distribute it to poor people that don't work.


That's the biggest problem we face in the world today. Two thousand years of religious philosophy has taught us to be altruistic which is completely against the natural order.

In every species on this planet it is the worker that survives and thrives, the busy bee, the industrious ant.

Teaching the poor to be dependent on the rich actually does great harm to them and to society as a whole. We need to have in place only a necessary security blanket.

__________________

My Best Sponsors MPl l Camsl CUMSHOTSl LESBIANSl FETISHl BJ RACESl TEEN BJl BSDMl VODl USE YOUR PC TO CURE CANCER

LiveDose

How anyone can be enthusiastic about any American politician these days is beyond me. You have to be near brain dead to be passionate about ANY of these crooks and ego maniacs.

__________________

kane

It doesn't occur to you that some of these taxes have gone to things that have helped businesses thrive and have helped wealthy people make some of their money?

Do you purpose a tax-free government with no national defense, no nationally paid for education, no federally funded roads, bridges, damns etc?

galleryseek

Sure, it certainly occurs to me that the money derived via the theft from others have benefited businesses and individuals alike. Does that mean it's justified?

Defense and private security could exist without the forced extraction of money from its citizens.

Education on a public level has proven to be an atrocity in effectiveness.

Roads, bridges and all of that could be built and maintained by businesses. Do some research on Anarcho-Capitalism.

kane

Then lets here it.

How do we pay for all of this without taxes? I'm not bashing, just genuinely interested. I think the taxes are too high, but when I look around see what most people pay, they get a lot back for what they put in and if each of us was expected to pay their fair share the average person could never afford it.

GrantMercury

That is such bullshit. There are too many people who pat themselves on the back for working hard, while imagining throngs of people living the good life collecting free money from the government. It's a fantasy. Get over yourself.

Why aren't you bitching about how long you have to work to pay for ExxonMobil subsidies? Or the massive, bloated, pork-filled "defense" budget?

__________________
http://www.taboophonesexfantasy.com
http://www.thekittykatclub.com

galleryseek

What borrowed money? I told you, it's stolen; not borrowed. It's going to other individuals.

What part of what I said confuses you?


Why would a business choose to ship jobs over seas? Because they hate america? Nah, because business is cheaper in other regions of the world.

How do we fix this problem? Hmm, perhaps we get rid of the minimum wage laws? Maybe get rid of regulations? Yeah, that's how. Because if you think about it, how is it anyone's right (including the state) to tell two consenting adults that they can't have an employer/employee relationship together?

Please, please, please watch this video to understand exactly how minimum wage laws hurt Americans:



You're talking about people who currently don't make any money? Or people who currently receive stolen money (tax) from others via the form of welfare? Sorry, I'm not exactly sympathetic towards those people.

Also, if you go and try to make the claim that people would starve if we're not providing them welfare, you're incorrect. Without taxation, voluntary contributions would be much higher than they are now as more people would have more money in the bank. No one would need to starve.


Nope, because we've pretty much always had taxes. But to say because we've always had taxes, means that we must always have taxes is the most ridiculous and illogical argument I've ever heard. Anarchy does not mean without rules, it means without rulers. That's a very important distinction to be made.

Instead of making broad-sweeping statements like that, try to refute the aspects of my argument(s) that are of nonsense to you. It just makes you look foolish.


Haha, yeah, it works so well, it's not as if nations right now are currently crumbling under debt. Taxation is theft of its citizens, it always has been and always will be.

This is assuming of course that "government inspectors" always do what's right. Unfortunately we've seen time and time again, they don't. They're corruptible, they abuse power, and they're inefficient.

GrantMercury

Jesus!

Public education has been a tremendous success! That's why every 1st world nation on Earth has it!

And how could the infrastructure and defense exist without taxes??

Insanity.

__________________
http://www.taboophonesexfantasy.com
http://www.thekittykatclub.com

GrantMercury

Go live on an island by yourself. You won't have to pay a penny. Think how great life will be. Think how much you'll save! Live off the land. Make a coconut-powered pedal car.

If the crew from Gilligan's Island can do it...

__________________
http://www.taboophonesexfantasy.com
http://www.thekittykatclub.com

GrantMercury

That actually widely-believed bullshit. It was about 7 months.

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast....two-years.html

__________________
http://www.taboophonesexfantasy.com
http://www.thekittykatclub.com

galleryseek

Well first I'm glad you're genuinely interested.

And also, it's very important for me to point out that worrying about the consequences of eliminating immoral acts is irrelevant. If you agree that it's wrong to kidnap (imprison) people because they do not consent to giving a group of individuals a % of their income (the state, much like how the mafia operates), then is it really relevant to worry about the potential consequences that may arise by eliminating that immorality?

As I've said before, people actually made the argument "Who will pick the cotton if we end slavery?"

But to entertain your question from a consequentialist point of view, who fights fires? who builds roads and bridges? who provides security?

People do. People would continue to solve these problems, except they wouldn't be funded through theft.

Think about something for a second... What if Sex.com was the only provider in which we could legally view adult content online? What if they had no competition? What if competition were made illegal? They wouldn't have an incentive to really improve their product or customer service.

This is the reason it takes an atrocity for a police officer to be fired, it's why we see the USPS in such a horrible shape that it is now, it's also the reason we see the state itself in a 16 trillion+ debt.

In a stateless/free/voluntary society, how would roads and bridges be paid for? How would services that are currently "public" be provided privately? There are many debates/approaches, and many of which arguably could work; the free market would ultimately decide the best path, as competition naturally chooses the winners.

Roads / Bridges:
http://www.reddit.com/r/Anarcho_Capi...restrict_sr=on
http://www.5stepstoanarchy.com/what-about-the-roads/

Security / Police:
http://mises.org/journals/jls/14_1/14_1_2.pdf

Fighting fires:
http://www.reddit.com/r/Anarcho_Capi...e_departments/

galleryseek

I don't want to change my geographical location, I have no problem with the area in which I live (aside from being too cold sometimes). I'd rather seek to change the way in which my presence here is controlled.

galleryseek

If public education is such a tremendous success, why is it that home schooled children are proven to have a higher IQ?

Infrastructure and defense can and would exist without the theft of its citizens, the only difference is it'd be provided in a much more efficient manner.

kane

I guess I look at it a different way. These are laws by which this country runs. If you don't like them you are free to either leave or work to change them. I don't see taxes as being something that is on par with theft, but I do think that much of our tax money is wasted and if the government were smaller and ran more efficiently taxes could be much lower.


While I understand that competition, in theory, makes a product or service better over time, there are some things I think it could cause problems with. A while back I was watching something on the history channel about the early stages of the fire department and how you had to basically buy a membership to the department in order to get service. So if you house was on fire and a competing fire department that you were not a member of showed up to the scene first you either had to pay them as well or they would just sit and watch your house burn.

The same kind of thing could happen with police. If I call them and tell them someone is breaking into house do they check to see if my membership is paid up before they call. What if there are multiple competing departments and the one I am a member of happens to be busy? Is there a central dispatch and who pays for that.

I can see where you are going with this in that a combination of volunteers and things like HOA fees and such could pay for local police and fire. . . but how is that different than a tax? If my HOA is going to charge me $100 per year to be a member of my local police department how is that different than the government just taking $100 from my taxes and giving it to the police.

What about those who are too poor to afford the service? Are they just fucked or do they get a pass and get it for free? If we are giving free passes who decides which people get them and which people don't?

I see where you are coming from with the roads, but is that not just another form of forcing taxes on the business owner? Now it isn't enough that you have to take the risk to put your own money forth to build a business, but you also have to have enough to build and upkeep the roads around the business you have built. So do local businesses also have to pay to pave the suburbs and surrounding areas? If not is that up to the people?

Lastly, what about education? I won't for a second suggest that we have a first rate public school system. It is desperate need of repair. It is bloated, corrupt and doesn't work that well. We can do a lot better. However, if education were left solely to individuals, many could not afford to send their kids to school so they would be stuck homeschooling them or they would have to find some kind of charity school. I don't think it would be long before those charity schools were overfull and turning people away.

Part of the reason private school costs half as much as public school on a per child basis is because they have the luxury of cherry picking the best students. When you have to deal with the masses it is an entirely different situation.

We haven't even touched on defense. Who is going to put up the cash to build and upkeep things like aircraft carries and to pay for all of our military expenses? You could cut the size of our military in half and it would still be something that cost 700 billion. That is a lot of cash.

I'm also assuming we just ditch medicare, medicaid and social security and assume people who are sick and old will either have family, friends or charities that take care of them?

I think some of your ideas have some merit, but to me they only work when you are talking about a small, controlled group. When you are talking about a huge country (physical size) with over 320 million people in it, it doesn't work out so well.

SuckOnThis

You've said some ridiculous things in this thread but this ones the funniest yet. Most home schooled kids are taught by their whacked out religious anti-social mom preparing them for the coming of christ. Show me one scientist that was home schooled.

Paul Markham

Then go live in a cave and don't use anything that's part of the "system" like the Internet.

__________________



Blowout deal. 880 videos, 2,400 image sets, plus many RAW videos. $500.
PM me for a deal. Skype Paulmarkham70

Paul Markham

A lot of people think like Mike. Short sighted greed. How much of the US tax budget goes to the Unemployed? The money that goes into their pockets. Not the administration of it.

Then imagine the problems if you took that money away from them. you would need to spend more on defence from them coming to Mike's house to take what he has. And they have more reason to steal it and guns according to the propaganda. Then what about the places they spend the money, they go bankrupt. The people who are part of the administration, they're out of a job. With no support or do we keep paying them to do nothing.

And why are there so many unemployed in the West? Take the shirt off your back and look at the label and see if it was made in the West. Or just turn your keyboard over.

__________________



Blowout deal. 880 videos, 2,400 image sets, plus many RAW videos. $500.
PM me for a deal. Skype Paulmarkham70

Paul Markham

You have no clue how essential it is today.

Are you really that crazy.

Not in places with a good public education. So you're solution is to hand everything over to the rich.

Yes it could and you would have to pay for every mile you drive. Or do you think the private ownership would save you money?

This guy wants to go back to the days of everything being in the hands of big business or even further back to the times of private armies.

Well that would be before America was anything but a settlement under the rule of the English, with their Army paid for out of the King's funds and led by General who paid for the rank. For America to become Independent it took an Army, paid for by who?

So let's go back to the English Civil War. Were taxes raised to fight that?

To make sure we get it right. The times of Lord and Barons. No there were taxes then. So back we go. GS, give us more insight on your vision of a world without taxes. </sarcasm>

One of the problems with Americans is they still see taxes through the eyes of the Boston Teaparty times. Taxes were taken from the population to give to the English rulers. different world today. Taxes are taken to keep your wheels turning.

__________________



Blowout deal. 880 videos, 2,400 image sets, plus many RAW videos. $500.
PM me for a deal. Skype Paulmarkham70

Joshua G

i feel bad for mitt romney. Ryan is going to outshine him exactly the way palin overshadowed mccain. All the big crowds will be there for ryan, not for mitt. & Fox news? forget about it.