Comments on: Meet the New Boss: McCain-Feingold

By: Sen. Lindsey Graham’s Me-Too Kyotoism (will he snatch defeat from the jaws of victory?) — MasterResource

Thu, 15 Oct 2009 06:02:26 +0000

[...] which would have revived the power of major broadcasting corporations and newspapers to act as information gatekeepers during federal elections — made McCain the establishment media’s favorite Republican [...]

By: simkatu

simkatu — Wed, 27 May 2009 05:37:13 +0000

"Income taxes are not necessary if the national government taxes only to pay for those things the constitution says it is specifically entitled to do."

Which might be true. I'd like to see how we could maintain the current defense budget without some sort of national taxation based at least partially on how much each individual is able to contribute.

Is it fair to just make everyone contribute a set amount (like $8000/yr) regardless of income? Is it fair to make everyone contribute a certain percentage (without any deductions) regardless of income?

If you notice I object to the federal government using its power to control the states. The feds were given very limited powers in the Constitution and they should stick to meddling in those areas.

And a VAT does not mean "everyone pays exactly the same percentage of tax as everyone else."" It's a regressive tax where poor people spend a much larger percentage of their income on taxes than rich people do. It's because poor people end up spending all their income each year, subjecting it all too a VAT, whereas wealthy people can end up paying little or nothing on their income if they decide not to spend their money on anything in a particular year. (Most people that make $100 million a year don't actually spend that much money each other).

I don't object to a VAT as one possible alternative, but I don't think its the only solution or best solution for funding the fed.

By: simkatu

simkatu — Wed, 27 May 2009 05:20:51 +0000

I don't forgot how Soros affects the elections. I think it is a detriment to free elections to allow only a select few billionaires make all the decisions on who gets to say what in the mass media. Since these industries are now controlled by only a few individuals (either on the left or right) it makes it difficult for opposing voices to be heard at all.

There is no choice when we let 4 billionaires make all the decisions on who gets to be on TV or in the paper.

If you want pie, then eat your own. I don't have it.

By: simkatu

simkatu — Wed, 27 May 2009 05:16:03 +0000

Yes. Just like George Soros or Warren Buffet or anybody else with a billion dollars.

Again you are under the mistaken impression that I am on the left. I criticize Bush because he was a gigantic spender that more than doubled government spending during his time in office.

Just because people criticize the stupidity of GW Bush doesn't mean they are pinkos. If anything Bush and his pappy are pinkos with all their "compassionate conservatism" entitlement programs.

By: simkatu

simkatu — Wed, 27 May 2009 05:11:43 +0000

You are out of your mind or stupid. I didn't suggest that censorship here was illegal or against the 1st amendment. Of course this is a privately owned site that is free to control its content however it wishes. I'm just suggesting that censorship of submitted content that is apparently just argumentative in nature (and not pornographic or hate speech) is a bad idea that should be reconsidered.

And censorship can be applied by anyone that has control of a location or media, not just a government.

That is a libertarian ideal.

By: simkatu

simkatu — Wed, 27 May 2009 05:04:58 +0000

No. I'm a person that believes the government shouldn't interfere in the private lives of individuals, except in the most extreme circumstances. I am truly for personal responsibility and freedom. Unlike many posers in the Republican party that profess to be for Liberty and Freedom, I am one that actually believes in it.

And you can even read your coveted NewsMax and discover that GW Bush (inflation adjusted) increased spending by 109% during his term compared to Clinton's 19% increase in spending.

Even Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck have commented on how GW Bush was a spend-a-holic.

Just because Bush was an idiot doesn't mean I'm a "pinko" to point it out.

By: LawhawkSF

LawhawkSF — Mon, 04 May 2009 00:50:09 +0000

Merely pointing out the dangerous possibility. And remember, the states are represented by people who will go with what they think is popular rather than what they know is right.

By: Jim

Jim — Mon, 04 May 2009 00:22:08 +0000

Calling a Constitutional Convention might not be as risky as it sounds. Anything that comes out of such a Convention still has to be approved by three fourths of the States. The "public" doesn't have much say in it, as it doesn't come to a popular vote.

By: Jim

Jim — Mon, 04 May 2009 00:17:20 +0000

You are correct, the dominant federal government was a direct result of Lincoln's policies and the outcome of the War Between the States. But the nanny state federal government was also a direct result of the progressives of the early 20th Century, Teddy Roosevelt, Wilson and FDR. They intended to remove all power from the individual States, and to restrict the people's liberty by putting the Federal government into all our lives on a daily basis. No, I'm not a conservative, more a libertarian, but more true to the original intent of libertarianism. And you are correct, income taxes are not necessary if we can force the people who run the federal government to return to Constitutional principles.

By: Just in case you ever doubted… « Cmblake6’s Weblog

Just in case you ever doubted… « Cmblake6’s Weblog — Sun, 03 May 2009 22:38:22 +0000

[...] in case you ever doubted… 2009 May 3 by cmblake6 This is from but one of the folks in Wholeyweird. As regards government support of, and control of, what goes on the alphabet station news. I highly [...]