Post your thoughts and comments about this blog post.

Gil. There were plenty of folks who did not do drugs or drink in high school. Actually, many were not at all unpopular. They were far thinking, intelligent types who were mature and would not compromise their values to peer pressure. Why should only people with half burned-out brains run the country? And why should it be less an honor TO BE a long standing person of honor? That makes no sense. If you were a compromising sort at one time in your life, you have experience being a compromising sort of person. Maybe when the chips are down, that kind of person will resort to earlier crutches or prior learned habits to solve a problem.



Why should we not know what people were like when they were younger? What do they benefit the country by hiding who they are?

This only applies to Democrats, if the candidate is a republican then anything blows.
Remember how they hounded Bill Clinton until he admitted he took a toke? When it became the Monkey's turn to fess up he said,"Anything I did before '73 is none of your business". The Old Media said,"Yes, Boss!!!"
In truth I thought this was an essay about the republican slate of presidential candidates when I read the title.

that's funny.... "anything blows"....Hounded Clinton.....

I think he got off pretty easily on that one.

Hey..THAT's funny too!

Don't hold your breath on that one, jpj.
It's that ole' debbil standard, go after a Democrat hammer and tongs for past mistakes, give the reublicans a pass unless it's too in your face. Ain't a free press grand?

Yeah....all those republican gay boys got off the hook. Meanwhile Barney Frank's roomate gets busted for a gay prostituition ring, operating out of their home in Georgtown and Barney "knew nothing about it".



Let's go back to the Clinton's dirty tricks - they do the deed and blame the republicans! How slimy can you get? Maybe Al Sharpton and his girlfriend? Nah, he does not meet the Clintons level of slime!

why do you hate clinton so much? is it because he proved reaganomics to be a scam that didn't work? because he raised taxes on the rich and the economy boomed? because he balanced the budget mess left by reagan and daddy0?

because hillary is more of a man than boy george?LOL

all of the above?

you and me paying more taxes will slow the economy down. Tax revenue goes up with tax cuts because industry invests,sells more, grows and makes more money. That equals tax revenue from Corporate America, not you and me.

You've been thoroughly bamboozled by those who want you to believe there's a lot of theoretical underpinnings to turning public wealth over to a very narrow band of extremely wealthy opportunists. It's a charade, dummy - "a subterfuge for the rich.

Sorry scribbler; no free rides.

Economic darwainism might sound like a nice to a room full of think-tank goons, they way it plays out in reality is much uglier.

That's the best comment you can muster "no free rides"

I try to go by the K.I.S.S program.

he tax cuts that Reagan did created investments by industry and banking. Those returns took a decade or more to show up in the economic infrastucture. I am not talking about consumer purchases, but industrial. You will deny this to the end, but you and me paying more taxes will slow the economy down. Tax revenue goes up with tax cuts because industry invests,sells more, grows and makes more money. That equals tax revenue from Corporate America, not you and me.

But Ronald Reagan does hold a special place in the annals of tax policy, and not just as the patron saint of tax cuts. To his credit, he was more pragmatic and responsible than that; he followed his huge 1981 tax cut with two large tax increases. In fact, no peacetime president has raised taxes so much on so many people. This is not a criticism: the tale of those increases tells you a lot about what was right with President Reagan's leadership, and what's wrong with the leadership of George W. Bush.

The first Reagan tax increase came in 1982. By then it was clear that the budget projections used to justify the 1981 tax cut were wildly optimistic. In response, Mr. Reagan agreed to a sharp rollback of corporate tax cuts, and a smaller rollback of individual income tax cuts. Over all, the 1982 tax increase undid about a third of the 1981 cut; as a share of G.D.P., the increase was substantially larger than Mr. Clinton's 1993 tax increase.

The tax cuts that Reagan did created investments by industry and banking. Those returns took a decade or more to show up in the economic infrastucture. I am not talking about consumer purchases, but industrial. You will deny this to the end, but you and me paying more taxes will slow the economy down. Tax revenue goes up with tax cuts because industry invests,sells more, grows and makes more money. That equals tax revenue from Corporate America, not you and me.

Ahhh Yes, the old 'trickle down theory' always loved that one And I do believe that more and more of 'Corporate America's HQ's are based in some where in China or Japan.

T
http://www.pkarchive.org/column/060804.html

I don't believe that Reagan ever initiated any of the tax increases enacted during his watch. Nor do I think Bush will, either. But when all the political and economic elites of this country gang up on a president to raise taxes, history shows that they always get what they want. Indeed, they were even able to get Bush's father to raise taxes in 1990, even though his political advisers knew that it would likely lead to his defeat in 1992, which it did.

Yea, kiss your voice in gov't goodbye and give it to the morons who caused the sub-prime lending crisis.

Sorry scribbler; no free rides.

Do tell, who are they?

What about the free rides of which you partake? I bet it just pains you to write off all of that mortgage interest on your fed income taxes every year. Why should you get government charity just because you have a mortgage?
Later...Shawn

What about the free rides of which you partake? I bet it just pains you to write off all of that mortgage interest on your fed income taxes every year. Why should you get government charity just because you have a mortgage?

Shawn, If I pay in $30,000 per year in taxes and I get to write-off my mortgage interest, let's call it $10,000, how do you call that a free ride. It is my money that I have paid. The government is allowing me to keep some of it.

Now they take that money and give it to, for example, welfare or earned income credits for which the recipient hasn't paid a dime for. Ergo, your free ride.

If you meet certain qualifications then you can receive a refund of more money then you paid in. Look up Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) as an example.

It is a kickback from the government to you just because you have a mortgage. The government doesn't have to do it. They are subsidizing you because you have a mortgage. Renters, and other folks without a mortgage don't get that subsidy. Using your logic, pretty much noone is getting a free ride. I doubt there is anyone on welfare, etc. who has never paid any federal taxes in their liftime. So, in essence, they are just getting some of their money back, ergo, no free ride.
Later...Shawn

Many people are receiving welfare that haven't paid a cent, i.e., some illegal alien families.

I'm not being subsidized, I'm doing the subsidizing. They take my money and it goes to others.

I believe we have gone away from the intended thought on this particular thread.

If some kind of catastrophe were to fall on my, and I were to loose everything such that I could not afford to support my family and had to go on welfare, would you consider me a "free loader" by the very virtue of the fact I was on welfare?

ABSOLUTELY

NOT!

You and I both know the difference.

Shawn, you're not being subsidized!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It's your money that they've taken from you every payday and now they are allowing you to take a bit of YOUR MONEY back.

I don't see the difference at all. When I see someone on welfare, I do not automatically assume that they have never paid any taxes. I ask you this. What percent of the people on Welfare have never paid a dime of taxes? In your determination, where is the cut-off between free-loader and non free-loader? How do you define the "difference".

The Income tax is just that, an income tax. I should be made to pay taxes based on all of my Income. Anything the government gives me in terms of deductions, that reduces my income and by definition the taxes I owe, is nothing more than a subsidy. The taxes that are taken out of your paycheck each week, are not "taxes". They are an estimate of the taxes that you are going to owe at the end of the year. The folks that get the EIC also pay taxes out of each paycheck. They are just getting it all back...plus some (call it interest if it makes you feel better). Sometimes the estimate is too high, and sometimes too low, resulting in a refund or having to pay more taxes. If it wasn't for the mortgage subsidy, I would have to pay extra every year. Instead, I get a refund. There is no basis for me having to pay less taxes just because I have a mortgage and pay interest.
Later...Shawn

Nor do I assume freeloading. If you can work and are able to find work you should work. I'm talking about whomever is taking advantage of the system.

On the income tax part, lets make it simple - - - and pass the Fair-Tax law.

The FairTax plan is a comprehensive proposal that replaces all federal income and payroll based taxes with an integrated approach including a progressive national retail sales tax, a prebate to ensure no American pays federal taxes on spending up to the poverty level, dollar-for-dollar federal revenue neutrality, and, through companion legislation, the repeal of the 16th Amendment.

The FairTax Act (HR 25, S 1025) is nonpartisan legislation. It abolishes all federal personal and corporate income taxes, gift, estate, capital gains, alternative minimum, Social Security, Medicare, and self-employment taxes and replaces them with one simple, visible, federal retail sales tax administered primarily by existing state sales tax authorities.

The FairTax taxes us only on what we choose to spend on new goods or services, not on what we earn. The FairTax is a fair, efficient, transparent, and intelligent solution to the frustration and inequity of our current tax system.

The FairTax:

• Enables workers to keep their entire paycheck
• Enables retirees to keep their entire pension
• Reimburses the tax on purchases of basic necessities
• Allows American products to compete fairly
• Brings transparency and accountability to tax policy
• Ensures Social Security and Medicare funding
• Closes all loopholes and brings fairness to taxation
• Abolishes the IRS

However, I think that some kind of income tax needs to be retained. But, there should be no deductions whatsoever. The tax form should be about the size of an index card. Just list your income, tax rate, and what you owe.

Along with it should be a complete overhaul of our government's spending and a mandatory balanced budget. Watch our economy take off if all of that were to happen.

Bummer Bill didn't balance the budget. He made it sound good when he added all the SS and Medicare revenues in to the general budget, but that really wasn't the way it was designed, was it?