If Re-Elected Bush plans to initiate draft in 2k5??

[DC3]

Pending Draft Legislation Targeted for Spring 2005
The Draft will Start in June 2005

There is pending legislation in the House and Senate (twin bills: S 89 and HR 163) which will time the program's initiation so the draft can begin at early as Spring 2005 -- just after the 2004 presidential election. The administration is quietly trying to get these bills passed now, while the public's attention is on the elections, so our action on this is needed immediately.

$28 million has been added to the 2004 Selective Service System (SSS) budget to prepare for a military draft that could start as early as June 15, 2005. Selective Service must report to Bush on March 31, 2005 that the system, which has lain dormant for decades, is ready for activation. Please see website: www.sss.gov/perfplan_fy2004.html to view the sss annual performance plan - fiscal year 2004.

The pentagon has quietly begun a public campaign to fill all 10,350 draft board positions and 11,070 appeals board slots nationwide.. Though this is an unpopular election year topic, military experts and influential members of congress are suggesting that if Rumsfeld's prediction of a "long, hard slog" in Iraq and Afghanistan [and a permanent state of war on "terrorism"] proves accurate, the U.S. may have no choice but to draft.

Congress brought twin bills, S. 89 and HR 163 forward this year, http://www.hslda.org/legislation/na...s89/default.asp entitled the Universal National Service Act of 2003, "to provide for the common defense by requiring that all young persons [age 18--26] in the United States, including women, perform a period of military service or a period of civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, and for other purposes." These active bills currently sit in the committee on armed services.

Dodging the draft will be more difficult than those from the Vietnam era.

College and Canada will not be options. In December 2001, Canada and the U.S. signed a "smart border declaration," which could be used to keep would-be draft dodgers in. Signed by Canada's minister of foreign affairs, John Manley, and U.S. Homeland Security director, Tom Ridge, the declaration involves a 30-point plan which implements, among other things, a "pre-clearance agreement" of people entering and departing each country. Reforms aimed at making the draft more equitable along gender and class lines also eliminates higher education as a shelter. Underclassmen would only be able to postpone service until the end of their current semester. Seniors would have until the end of the academic year.

Even those voters who currently support US actions abroad may still object to this move, knowing their own children or grandchildren will not have a say about whether to fight. Not that it should make a difference, but this plan, among other things, eliminates higher education as a
shelter and includes women in the draft.

The public has a right to air their opinions about such an important decision.

Please send this on to all the friends, parents, aunts and uncles, grandparents, and cousins that you know. Let your children know too -- it's their future, and they can be a powerful voice for change!

Please also contact your representatives to ask them why they aren't telling their constituents about these bills -- and contact newspapers and other media outlets to ask them why they're not covering this important story.


The link can be found here: http://www.congress.org/congressorg/issues/alert/?alertid=5834001&content_dir=ua_congressorg

 

[kong1971]

This news is so incredibly frightening it is unreal. If Bush is re-elected, America will become a dictatorship! I urge everyone here to cut and paste this article into an email and forward it to everyone they know. This "war on terrorism" is nothing but a manufactured conflict to distract the American public while our rights are stripped from us and those in power get themselves fat off blood and oil.

 

[Texan]

Come on guys. Don't you think that if that were real SENATOR Kerry would know about it and be screaming it from the top of every mountain in his campaign for President? Not mention Teddy Kennedy, and his band of merry leftists...Feinstein, Kerry, Schumaker, etc...oops I already mentioned Kerry.

Bush agitates me too, but we can't believe everything we read on the internet.

 

[Ulcasterdropout]

I heard about it a while ago.........crazy, women and students are eligible.

 

[kong1971]

Come on guys. Don't you think that if that were real SENATOR Kerry would know about it and be screaming it from the top of every mountain in his campaign for President? Not mention Teddy Kennedy, and his band of merry leftists...Feinstein, Kerry, Schumaker, etc...oops I already mentioned Kerry.

Bush agitates me too, but we can't believe everything we read on the internet.

Oh my god, you're one of THEM! :O

 

[DC3]

Texan is part of the conspiracy!! Hes helping bush!

 

[fender646]

I think that site, Congress.org, is an official government website. But that arcticle is not an arcticle put out by the website. It was put out in the user opinion section called "Soapbox". But nevertheless, it's quite possible.

I heard Kerry say in a speech that we wants to re design the military and expand the army by some 50,000(?) troops. He also wants the Nat. Guard and Reserves to fuckin actually guard the nation and have some reserve troops to protect the homeland. Which is what they are there for in the first place.

I also saw this on the site, and it makes me chuckle everytime. Under Prez Bush's bio it sayz, Birthplace: New Haven, CT

Its hilarious how everybody thinks Bush is some Texan, Rancher average kinda guy, but he was born in the "liberal" Northeast and went to Yale, just like John Kerry.

Whaddya think Texan, do most people in Texas think Bush is a native? or vote for him b/c he talks like a Southerner?

 

[Texan]

Whaddya think Texan, do most people in Texas think Bush is a native? or vote for him b/c he talks like a Southerner?

To be honest with you, there are a lot of Texans who really believe he's a Texan; I know better. Keep in mind that Bush was VERY popular as Governor here. His "good ol' boy" appeal comes off just as thick or thicker in person as it does on TV. I think a lot of people here are still supporting Governor Bush, as oppsed to President Bush. Hell, a lot of people think his dad is a Texan. Actually I had to explain to my wife a few days ago that Bush isn't really a Texan. And like I said, the guy agitates me, but I still like him better than the alternative.

 

[Texan]

Texan is part of the conspiracy!! Hes helping bush!

Oh my god, you're one of THEM! :O

lol That's funny. I'm not one of anything...I got enough to handle being a dad and a husband and trying to grow a normal size cock.

 

[Super]

I hope he does re enstate the draft, the the military needs a boost. Its ridiculous that we dont have a mandatory military for 2 -4 years for everyone, our military is way to small. This nation is only here casue of the military and its citizins dont even want to join, they just want to rep the benifits of freedom. Freedom comes with a price that people like me and others have to pay

 

[Texan]

Excellent Supra. People take it for granted.

 

[penguinsfan]

Are our rights being stripped away? Yes. However, the "oil" argument is asinine. If we wanted the oil, it would have been far less trouble to just buy it illegally like the French and Russians did.

As for the military service, I don't necessarily favor a draft, but Supra makes a good point. Plus, there are other countries such as Germany that require a year of service.

 

[twilighterror]

The pentagon and the Bush administration have repeatedly stated that they don't want the draft. The legislation is sponsered by Charles Rangel, a democrat and vitriolic Bush critic. But don't let facts get in the way of the Bush bashing.

 

[RBSS]

Excellent statement, Supra. Too many Americans take their freedom for granted. Too many do not want to serve their country. Too many do not understand international politics and base their opinions on a black and white world. Those people cannot imagine the depth of the decision to go in to Iraq. I support my President and believe he is doing the best job that anyone could do given the circumstances. The so-called Bush bashers are simply "bashers" and will become bashers of the next administration as well.

And the last democrat that was in office cut my Army to nothing....

 

[Jersey]

Twilight is correct.

The legislation is being pushed and sponsored by democrats in the Congress, and Rangel in particular. So the entire thread is predicated on a false preemise, as well as most of the earlier attacks against the administration.

I'll be curious to see how many change their comments or perceptions to reflect the new reality. But I suspect that won't be the case.

 

[bud1971]

The draft is not gonna happen, period.

The President and other adult members of Congress and the administration realize that the reason we have the best military in the world is because it is an all volunteer force.

Supra, great points......freedom isn't free.

BTW, for you non-Texans. Bush was popular because he was a good governor. He basically got elected because Anne Richards would not let the concealed handgun bill come up for a vote. He promised he would sign it if it came across his desk, which he did. Any guy that spends his vacation clearing mesquite brush from his ranch is a Texan in my opinion.

 

[Jersey]

He moved to Texas when he was just a small child. Are only those born in Texas considered Texans? Sounds more bitter than anything.

 

[penguinsfan]

The so-called Bush bashers are simply "bashers" and will become bashers of the next administration as well.

Not if it's John Kerry. Most of those people hate Bush because he is a Republican, plain and simple. It has nothing to do with consistency of policies. Remember when SpongeBill No-Pants waged war in the Balkans? We just HAD to get rid of Milosevic. He was just such a bad guy. And what did we end up finding? A couple thousand bodies in graves, which were of varying ethnicity. In Iraq, we find over 300,000 dead and this war is called illegitimate from those that did not utter a peep about Clinton's Balkan campaign. Clinton's Balkan campaign was also done unilaterally, without a UN mandate or any protest by the UN, and Milosevic was not in violation of any agreements he had signed, as Saddam was by not cooperating with inspectors. There are also reports that the civilian casualties were much higher in the Balkan campaign, though not reported by the liberal media (which did not dwell on casualties in Iraq, in all fairness). So, it's not about true moral conviction, or you would have heard far greater outrage over our campaign against Yugoslavia.

Now, we find serin gas and the British have discovered the Khadafi's scientists were 487 outsourced Iraqi scientists, cooperating on a nuclear program. Bush's actions might have saved hundreds of thousands.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not one to kiss Bush's ass. In my mind, the man is a pro-life, pro-military liberal, based on the incredible amount of pandering and spending he has done. The greatest President America ever had passed away on Saturday and we'll be fortunate if we ever get another half as good. Yes, the peace weenies criticized him back then, calling him a radical cowboy. They said he was going to start WWIII by his aggressive actions towards the Soviet Union and now millions live free in Eastern Europe. The distorted view of Bush is because those neo-communists never wiped the egg off their faces, after their laughable critiques on Reagan.

 

[bud1971]

I just don't understand all of this hypocrisy and negativity.

We had no choice but to fight this war, other than to lay down and surrender. Iraq was a logical next choice. Saddam was a huge sponsor of int'l terrorism and had the most potent army in the Middle East. If you have to fight a bunch of thugs you always take out the toughest first. Some of the others may just give up without a fight(Libya). We have LIBERATED two countries with minimal loss of American life, tried to limit civilian casualties(we are the only ones held to this standard), our economy is better following the catastrophic loss of the Twin Towers and the Clinton recession, I just don't get it.

The Democrats these days are against everything but don't know what they are for. We better wake up and realize that we are in a fight to the death with an enemy who wants us dead for no other reason than the fact that we are alive. We cannot negotiate or placate them.

BTW, I agree there are no fiscal conservatives left, one can only hope.

 

[Lz2483]

I have a friend who's from Sweden and for years now that has been SOP with the Swiss. When a male student turns 18 he is required to do 3 years in the military. Mandatory service or three years in prison for refusal. My friend chose prison due to his personal beliefs.

This is also pretty normal in several other European countries, which is probably where the idea comes from.

 

[goodbutnotgreat]

1. A draft is highly, highly unlikely.

2. We do take our freedoms for granted, but this doesn't justify a draft. Supra, for instance, enjoys his job by all description and is not made to do anything for our benefit. Firefighters and policeman keep you safe within your own country, free from the despotism of fire and crime. Do you feel service in those organizations should be manditory?

3. Bush is a terrible president. He's a mediocre man with very, very limited intellectual abilities. Nobody can make a convincing argument that he isn't the president, or has achieved anything for that matter, on the strength of his own ability rather than his name. He also dodged Vietnam in a very cowardly fashion for those of you so enthused about all things martial.

4. Somebody commented that the last democrat in office dismantled the military. Hmmm, this same military that we used to invade Iraq and Afghanistan so effectively? The army that allowed us to conquer a region in a few weeks that the Russians couldn't control in a decade of bloody combat? The most advanced, pwoerful, mobile military in the world? This is Clinton's army we're fighting with right now, not Bush's or Reagan's, and military experts and generals, from the elft and right, praised Clinton up and down for his bolstering and development of the armed forces. The concept that liberals are militarily weak and won't protect their country is just childish conservative propaganda.

5. For the last time, Iraq was not a major center of international terrorism and Hussein's government was not a terrorist booster. By all accounts it has some of the lowest concentrations of terrorists in that entire region of the world. And that little cannister of sarin gas shot out was estimated to be about a decade old and likely recovered from some ancient ammo dump by insurgents. So far as the outsourced terrorists, I haven't even heard of this yet, but it's no secret Iraq had a full scale weapons program for years. Did they recently? After turning the country upside down searching, conducting tens of thousands of interviews, and confiscating nearly every available government PC, we can't find a shred of evidence to credibly support the claim. Open your eyes people . . .

6. Boiling down the politics and horrors of the Balkans to a just a few thousand bodies of mixed ethnicities in holes (inaccurate statement by the way) is wrong for a lot of reasons, and it completely factors out the international and domestic political climates of the time. Do yourself a favor and pick up a book on the history fo the Balkans and see how you feel. Additionally, we contributed to UN operations in the area and conducted a bombing campaign to depose a dictator. We didn't fly our flags under some kind of bizarre and constantly shifting 'manifest destiny' style agenda and invade the country. Totally different scenarios, not valid for comparison in the slightest. Comparing Bush's foreign policy to Clinton's is like holding a candle next to a spotting light. One is far-reaching, practical, and effective; the other is old-fashioned, a bit dim, and if you take it too far out of it's prescribed element it's disappears and you're left in the dark.

 

[channel7]

Regardless of what you think the draft will happen. I know because I use to work for the Government. Do not believe the hype. It will get worst before it gets better. I am not looking forward to fighting in a war without a purpose. Death and destruction are not my cup of tea at all.

I am just going to stay prayful.

 

[Remo]

There was a Demmy Senator, I think it was Charlie Rangel(sp?). He's that older black guy that fought in Korea and has a really raspy voice. I think he's retiring soon. But anyway, he says he's supporting legislation to institue the draft.

The reason he gave is so that kids from all social classes and wealth, would be more evenly distributed. He said that the financial benefits of joining the military arent that huge, and many poor kids sign up for the Reserves or Nat. Guad to help pay for college or etc.

There will definatley be no draft or even talks before the election by Bush. Kerry wants to increase the size of military by some 400,000. I also saw something on the news that the new Iraq Interim Gov. might have a date when Iraq could tell US Military to leave if they want. But not sure.

The underline factor in Iraq and the whole War on Terror in general, is that Bush can never win the respect, hearts, minds, trust, etc. of regular Arabs. Arabs see the hypocrisy of how the Suadi's say they are our allies, but the Royal family dosent stop the schools that teach their kids to hate America. The Bush-Suadia connection is too deep and Arabs are too cynical of this entire Administration in every aspect. They think Bush and America is really after oil. We need a new person and start fresh.

 

[VladtheImpaler]

Oil, What oil.....I thought Bush went in there to help out all those poor innocent Arabs...lol

TheboywhocriedIraq.com READ IT

Deepest shit Ive ever read about Bush and his war on Terrorism

Clinton was one ass-kickin Pussy poundin Prez....Period

 

[oopapercutoo]

What Clinton lacked in "morals" he more then made up for in his ability to govern our country. I'd gladly elect an adulterous, power-abusing man who knows how to do a good job in the White House than a imbecilic, inept boob who's only capable of forming a complete sentence thanks to his crack team of writers.

 

[Jareth]

Ok fine have the draft but answer me this question u think any of bush's family will be in that? ALso supra ur right everybody takes freedom for granted but don't say that u have to be in the military to serve your country in less than a year i will be a cop and that is serving my country. My mom is a nurse and thats serving our country, doctors, vets, fireman, etc all serve their country I salute u for being a marine and i have quite a few friends that have been to desert storm, and lately IRAQ and i have the most respect for all of the military personall. In my opinion if the draft does happen than there should be no exceptions if i go i wanna c a bush, or kerry, or celebraties fighting next to me also.

 

[LevitraKid]

Those of you that believe the retoric put out by Clinton (both of them), Kerry and he rest of the Ted Kennedy following, must also believe in the tooth fairy and the Easter Bunny. If you can't stand on your own two feet don't expect the Democrats to get ME to support you. If they all promise you something for nothing, somebody has to pay. ALL money comes from none other than taxpayers. There ain't no such animal as "Federal" or "State" money.

 

[Casey]

Its funny you say that Levitra b/c Bush is robbing the Federal Treasury (our money) and handing it out by the $100,000 to millionaires and other people who dont even need it.

 

[LevitraKid]

Casey, I see you are just another person that believes the Liberal package of retoric. You must be one of those that expects the goverment to hold your hand. If you are refering to the "Tax Cuts" those "millionaires" have been and still are carrying the tax load of this country. By the way I am NOT a millionare. I live on a small pension and meager Social Security. I have had ONE 3 % increase in my pension in 14 years and Social Security increases that are more than taken back by Medicare increases.
The democrats are the ones that say that Bush is going to take away S.S. but it has been Democrats that have repeatedly taken it back through devious and obvious ways every time!

 

[LevitraKid]

Casey, I apologize! I got a burr under my saddle, and spouted off before thinking. I'd have deleted the post, but don't know how.

 

[Casey]

Oh yeah, your right, millionaires shouldnt pay any taxes. Its those fuckin middle income scHydromaxucks that are dragging the heels of America.

Gee there's a reason why they pay more taxes, They're fuckin MILLIONAIRES. When you see a middle income soldier who sacrificies to thier country and dies, tell me what the fuck the Rich have had to sacrifice?

We ALL should make sacrifices if we're going to win wars. You make taxes during wartime, you dont cut them. Dont tax and spend is a recipe for fiscal disaster. He's robbing the treasury.

 

[goodbutnotgreat]

If anybody is interested, over the last two decades the GOP has wildy outspend democrats and Bush has NEVER vetoed a spending bill. Financially Bush is reckless to the point of absurdity. Conservative and liberal analysts predict that the GOP created and supported policies currently in place will bankrupt social security before the baby-boomers have all passed. Kerry is much more financially hawkish than Bush, his voting record proves it. Liberals believe in putting money back into communities and distributing wealth in order to bolster the country as a whole.

The new right spends excessively on corporate welfare and defense projects while underfunding social programs. This allows communities to degrade and crime to rise, in the end just costing taxpayers more to control social problems. Under Bush, wealthy taxpayers are essentially getting a free ride. Many people are easily bought off by a flimsy tax refund, but in order to provide this Bush wrecked the budget, which had been operating at a record surplus under Clinton. Look at the facts before you blindly devote yourself to a politician or group. And by look at the facts I mean read statisitcs, books, and news reports, not listen to talk radio or the guys around the water cooler. Too often we formulate out politics based on hearsay from our peers as well as skewed and sometimes downright wrong half-facts from infotanement style broadcasts.

 

[Casey]

The economy is starting to really pick up pace, but it only really shows on the Stock Market. The jobs lost during Bush were $40K per year, and now the jobs being created are lower level jobs average about $28K per year.

Bush's economic policies are soley geared to the upper invester class. We're the proles.

 

[bigbutnottoo]

I hope he does re enstate the draft, the the military needs a boost. Its ridiculous that we dont have a mandatory military for 2 -4 years for everyone, our military is way to small. This nation is only here casue of the military and its citizins dont even want to join, they just want to rep the benifits of freedom. Freedom comes with a price that people like me and others have to pay

"The most fundamental objection to draft registration is moral," President Reagan once said. "[A] draft or draft registration destroys the very values that our society is committed to defending."

 

[Texan]

The economy is starting to really pick up pace, but it only really shows on the Stock Market. The jobs lost during Bush were $40K per year, and now the jobs being created are lower level jobs average about $28K per year.

Bush's economic policies are soley geared to the upper invester class. We're the proles.

Established jobs always pay more than newly created ones. It only makes sense that when a company cuts a position the person holding that job is making more than a new hire.

Also, Bush isn't telling companies what to pay people. If Bush is giving so much money to corporations, as liberals claim, then why are liberals blaming him when the corps don't pay as much...according to the liberal theory Bush should be facilitiating higher starting pays by lowering operating costs for businesses.

The economy works in cycles. It always has. I don't blame Clinton any more for the recession that started well before he left office than I credit Bush for the current economic growth. Of course I believe their policies facilitated these trends, but their policies didn't cause these trends.

 

[Casey]

Established jobs always pay more than newly created ones. It only makes sense that when a company cuts a position the person holding that job is making more than a new hire.

Also, Bush isn't telling companies what to pay people. If Bush is giving so much money to corporations, as liberals claim, then why are liberals blaming him when the corps don't pay as much...according to the liberal theory Bush should be facilitiating higher starting pays by lowering operating costs for businesses.

That first quote dosent even really make sense b/c companies arent cutting jobs, and then hiring people for different jobs. Many of these jobs are created, mostly in the service sector, as opposed to the manufacturing sector where most the jobs were lost.

The second quote makes no sense either. Bush is handing out irresponsible tax cuts, and further cutting corporate taxes and regulations. To be fair, Kerry is proposing cutting the corporate tax rate. Which would be fair, but you must make sure these corporations arent cheating the govt by paying little or no taxes. By offshore banking for instance.

Also inflation is about to go way up, so that will really hurt the current economic growth.

 

[bigbutnottoo]

The second quote makes no sense either. Bush is handing out irresponsible tax cuts, and further cutting corporate taxes and regulations. To be fair, Kerry is proposing cutting the corporate tax rate. Which would be fair, but you must make sure these corporations arent cheating the govt by paying little or no taxes. By offshore banking for instance.

Also inflation is about to go way up, so that will really hurt the current economic growth.

WELFARE is a handout. A Tax cut is not. A Tax cut is just returning money that was already yours to begin with. Its the government saying " We will confiscate less from you than we previously did."

also: BUSINESS DOES NOT PAY TAXES and never has nor should. The end user pays all taxes. Penis EnlargementRIOD. Raising business taxes raise prices ( as do things like raising minimum wage to absurd levels). Lowering corporate taxes is generally good for consumers. Anyone who doesnt understand this is a victim of anti-conceptual propaganda.

 

[goodbutnotgreat]

While there is much solid theory supporting the benefits of a libertarian-style market system, the realities of operating such for a country like the US are something to reconcile. Whatever might work best, in an ideal world, is not so hard to just establish in the midst of the real world, and so we work with what is already in effect. Plus, don't forget that marxism and any number of other things look fully functional on paper, but I think nearly anybody would agree that economics is highly unpredictable and imprecise due to the human aspect of all data, hence the proliferation of different opinions.

To the fellow who insists that government subsidation of corporations ought to spur them into giving their employees higher salaries, I'll just take it for granted you don't work in the corporate world my friend. The goal is to make money, not balance society by giving back what fair regulation has endowed your firm with . . . I would love to hear somebody sit in a board room and say "you know lads, let's take the profits we'll report this quarter, that we've recieved from massive kickbacks and deregulation, and just up teh salary of all our lower tiered employees a bit eh?" Government and industry support each other to mutally insure their effectiveness and survival, it's called the industrial military complex. It exists all over the world and any politician will readily admit to the relationship as such. Government and business are mortally tied in the US, just as they were intended to be. Our economics have always had a streak of socialism, and the welfare goes both ways. It's the oil in our society's engine.

 

[LevitraKid]

Three cheers for BIGBUTNOTOO, you hit the nail on the head. The ONLY person that ends up paying ALL taxes is the consumer! As far as recessions or recovery, it all happens in spite of government not because of it. ScHydromaxucks blame government because they can't blame themselves. Every time a person buys a product from a company that is forgein, they make a contribution to that forgein company even if they think it's OK because the product is assembled in this country. The profit still leaves the country. Think about it the next time you lose your job. YOU HELPenis EnlargementD MAKE IT HAPPenis EnlargementN!!!

 

[Casey]

CEO's and etc. salaries should be capped. Fuck them and their million dollar Christmas bonuses and hiding all their money in the Caymen Islands just to fuck Unky Sam. True patriots pay US taxes.

Oh and Fuck Tax Shelters, thats where companies lower their quarterly profits by hiding money in legal tax shelters (approved by dicks in Congress) and avoid taxes.

In Bush's America, the burden of Tax is being further shifted on the working middle income class, and taken off the wealthy investor class. Thats a fact, and you can bitch all you want about consumer prices, b/c I'd rather pay 5 cents more for shit at Wal-Mart if it means the rich dont just get richer and poor get poorer.

Read Perfectly Legal by David Cay Johnston.http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...002-2732889-9645652?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

 

[Texan]

CEO's and etc. salaries should be capped. Fuck them and their million dollar Christmas bonuses and hiding all their money in the Caymen Islands just to fuck Unky Sam. True patriots pay US taxes.

Yes, absolutely! Fuck free enterprise and our whole economic system. Who needs private business ownership free of governmental control anyway...I mean really, what the fuck has it done for us to this point? OH YEAH- IT'S MADE US THE WEALTHIEST NATION ON THE PLANET. But on the other hand, you do make a good point... look at what your economic philosophy has done for the Soviet Union...oops, bad example- THEY COLLAPSED. And before you say, "It's made George Bush, Bill Gates, the Kennedys rich, but not me..." compare your standard of living to that of citizens of other nation. Typical liberal, you take everything for granted.

Oh and Fuck Tax Shelters, thats where companies lower their quarterly profits by hiding money in legal tax shelters (approved by dicks in Congress) and avoid taxes.

Again, see above. Come on, who's money is it anyway? Do these companies really think that just because they invest in capital, research, development, production, distribution, marketing, etc. that they are entitled to make any money? Fuck'em!! Tax the shit out of them so that taxes make any proftits negligible and they sell out to foreign corporations...who aren't subject to our tax laws. Why the fuck should the government allow our money to stay in private hands in the U.S. when we can either confiscate it for the government/good of all or drive it into the hands of foreign businesses- that beats having an elite class...yes Communism, it worked so well for the Soviet Union... it sent a whole fucking nation down the economic tubes.

In Bush's America, the burden of Tax is being further shifted on the working middle income class, and taken off the wealthy investor class. Thats a fact, and you can bitch all you want about consumer prices, b/c I'd rather pay 5 cents more for shit at Wal-Mart if it means the rich dont just get richer and poor get poorer.

Read Perfectly Legal by David Cay Johnston.http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...002-2732889-9645652?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

Silly me. I guess I just thought my wife and paid less in taxes last year than during the tax-happy Clinton years. And we are smack dab in the middle of the middle class. You don't mind paying 5 cents more at Wal-Mart (I assume you mean in taxes, because we wouldn't want the Walton family to make any more money off the company their father built from the ground up)? You talk about hitting the middle to lower/middle classes with taxes...who the fuck do you think shops at Wal-Mart? George Bush? Man, you have all the answers don't you?

If you really want to talk about how taxes affect people, you need to talk proportional impact. That 5 cent tax you propose hits the lower class the hardest because 5 cents is a greater proportion of their income than it it is of Bill Gates income; it's simple economic fact- people only buy so much shit, regardless of income.

I'd rather pay 5 cents more for shit at Wal-Mart if it means the rich dont just get richer and poor get poorer.

Yes, in a perfect Communist society we are all equal...just like in Cuba, right?

 

[Casey]

I think if a company is laying off 1000 people, or whatever, then the CEO's shouldnt be able to turn right around and increase their vacation package to include a million dollar trip to Hawaii. Thats should be a clause that benefits everyone.

I read somewhere that the average CEO's salary w/o benefits is some 100+ million dollars. And what the fuck do they really do? Not shit, just oversee the people below him at the meetings, and then fly back to thier mansion. All that is at expense to the company profits, the stockholders and the employees. Its like Congress voting on increasing their salary. Right now, thats fuckin unconstitutional.

Im all for people making money, what Im NOT for is people who got truckloads of money, lobbying Congress and receiving unfair tax cuts at the American people's expense. Do you know how much money gets pissed right down the toilet? Government waste and pork-barrel spending is at its highest.

Why should companies who make billion dollar annual profits, be receiving Corporate Welfare? We can protect the public w/o making this a equal socialist society. Typical of you to take the extremist Cuba comparison, just to show your ignorance.

 

[Texan]

Its like Congress voting on increasing their salary. Right now, thats fuckin unconstitutional.

Actually that's explicitly Constitutional. Usually the liberals are the one screaming about the Right suspending the Constitution to suit their own agenda at certain times... but then double standards are nothing new to politics (on both sides).

Typical of you to take the extremist Cuba comparison, just to show your ignorance.

Hey you laid the groundwork, I just filled in the blanks. I don't think I'm ignorant...I understood perfectly what you were saying. And in theory Communism works, but practically, as we can see, it's a dumb fucking idea. I would argue it is more ignorant to ignore history.

And Cuba is not an extremist comparison; FYI it is often cited by political scholars as the best functioning example of Communism the world has seen...Now that really makes the idea shine, don't it?

 

[bigbutnottoo]

Oh and Fuck Tax Shelters, thats where companies lower their quarterly profits by hiding money in legal tax shelters (approved by dicks in Congress) and avoid taxes.

Thats why I support FairTax/Flat Tax ideas. However, dont blame big corporations for taking advantage legally of what they can. Poor and middle class also have "tax shelters" and programs they can take advantage of if they have priorities. Or if you are working poor with kids you can get EIC and endup not only paying ZERO taxes, but making a profit/rebate tax time. Plus we have HOPenis Enlargement credits, IRA deductions,etc. I disagree with the system but whilke it exists I will work within it.

 

[AC'sGirl]

http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/draft.asp

If ya read it on the internet then it must be true.

 

[goodbutnotgreat]

Texan, you state that history needs to be observed when regarding economics, so take your own advice. There are many other historical forces that contributed to America's wealth and power besides a free market. And study the actual logisitics of our economic system as well, it's always been partly socialist, as the founders intended, and it always will be. A certain degree of governmental control is essential in our system, it's really just certain minutia of how it's exercised at the federal level that Democrats and Republicans fight about.

Federal controls on the economy don't equal a closed or communist society, that entire system is far more complicated than just economic measures, and I believe you are aware of this. Market control and taxation does not equal a closed society or less deomocracy. So far as taxation on corporations, there seems to be this general conservative faith in business that they'll somehow pass along their savings to the working world if they aren't regulated. Multi-nationals don't answer to any higher authority than the bottom line and their own longevity, and this in and of itself is neither good nor bad. Blaming taxation, however, for outsourcing and corporate downsizing is a conclusion achieved mostly by intuition and assumption. The economy of the US is in a transitory phase as we shift to a mostly post-industrial model, and corporations will change the nature of their operation regardless. One of the largest flaws I see in economic theory from political conservatives is the stoic belief that things do not change over time.

The preferance of spending more for consumer goods or accepting higher taxation is not strictly economic. The bottom line is that the infrastructure of society must be paid for by taxation at some level - the argument lies in who pays how much because of what. Simplistic as the example may be, recall the original governing document of our nation, The Articles of The
Confederation. The new country nearly collapsed as they lacked the power to tax and control commerce between the states. Taxes are essential, at the household, consumer, and corporate level, ideally with a mixture, as we now operate. Many theorists and scholars far more learned and saavy than those of us in this forum advocate such a system. I think you would also agree, as a student of law, that it's quite oversimplified to suggest that being willing to spend more due to a belief in corporate taxation as consumer does not necessarily identify somebody as a liberal or wealthy. With a thorough review of the issues, I believe you might find that molly coddling of corporate entities by the government does little or nothing for the middle and lower classes while redistributing ever greater amounts of wealth to the upper percentile.

Finally, you may want to check up on some books regarding the effects of corporate taxation and regulation. One very fine MIT study was able to demonstrate emprically that environmental regulation and taxation on industry forced inovation and higher productivity, eventually raising the profits and efficiency of all the firms regulated. Without regulation and progressive attitudes in economics, the industrial backbone of the nation becomes a monolithic system vulnerable to any number of ailments.

 

[bigbutnottoo]

Our country did survive for over a century and a quarter ( after the official formation of the "USA") without any direct tax on income [ which was of course unconstitutional, requiring the 16th Ammendment ( which much research has shown was probably not legally ratified)] So I dont buy the idea that an (income) tax is necessary.

Other than that, Swank, I enjoy reading your posts. I do have some disagreements, however it is obvious your perspective is one that is well-thought and more formed that most partisan bickering on this subject.

Another note: As far as regulation ,taxes,etc, I think (perhaps) your argument does not consider the impact that the market and competition would (does) have on prices, wages, innovation, productivity. You correctly noted the impact of regulation on spurring production and efficiency. I would argue that healthy market competition does the same. And I stand by my assertion that corporate taxes are most felt by the consumer. Here is one example. While a student, I am employed at an hourly wage that is comfortably above the minimum wage, yet not a lucrative one. If any of the following are raised- FICA, Worker's Comp, Minimum Wage- be assured that this will effectively hurt me from both ends. 1- My wage will be comparitively lower as it is likely minimum wage workers in my industry will receive raises while middle tier workers will not- basically bringing my wage down lower ( closer to minimum and into low wage area). Or in the case of raised withholding, my ability to receive a raise will be lowered as my employer has already been forced to pay more to keep me on. I know that you know this, Swank, but I doubt most people understand that employers match FICA, have to pay a % into Unemployment, Workers comp,etc. Plus if you have benefits thats another expense. The total cost of a worker is much more than his wage and regulation makes this an undue burden and makes it more difficult to retain certain workers. Of course another option for my employer is to keep me but layoff minimum wage employees( or vice versa) causing me to do more work for the same pay ( Hey, productivity!.. I guess if that's what you want ..with increased unemployment, but most left-socialists desire the opposite). Either way, my employer will be forced to raise prices to keepup with the cost increases. So not only will I earn less, my dollar will also buy less. Inflation combined with stagnant wages- How Fun!

Really, I think the argument is more a philosophical/moral one than a political one ( I am neither (D) nor (R), btw). You may be correct to provide support that certain regulation helps the economy. But you must ask " Is it right?" and "By what(/whose) right?). I think most of those who agree with me on this matter understand that the outcomes are irrelevant to the principle of the matter. Perhaps, I could conduct a trial/study that determines that publicy shooting one employee per month increases worker productivity and wages. SHould we make this a law? I know of course, this may seem stretching things for impact ( what, how could you compare killing someone to legally stealing from them?). But really when one has a moral code and hierarchy of values, there is no room for pragmatism that is in direct oppostition to what is right.

 

[Texan]

Swank and Big, you both have good things to say. The point to my post was simply that what Casey suggested closely resembled Communism (his disdain for the elite, share the wealth via government redisribution philosophy), and the government telling private business owners how they can spend their revenues is contrary to what this country represents. My comments on observing history pertained only to the examples of communist regimes and their economic failures. I do not deny a certain amount of Socialist tint to our National economy, but you know as well as I that Socialism and Communism are horses of two different colors.

Anyway, I appreciate the well reasoned input. Big, I agree that economics is much more about philosophy than politics, although sometimes that is hard to see.

Best-

 

[goodbutnotgreat]

You both make a strong case (both law students eh?)

Indeed, those associates of mine that lean towards the Libertarian camp have often shown me that there truly is no legal grounding for an income tax. The argument against this is that our government is mixture of formal script and traditionalism more than strict interpretationists would like to admit. I do find the dubious necessity of the income tax interesting though, my actual knowledge of economics is such that I coulnd't really comment, though it is quite intriguing.

You both touch on the main point, which is that economics is a notoriously flaky field. Getting two economists to agree on much of anything is a tall order. At best econ is a complicated and fairly reliable system of pattern recognition from which we can project some modest predictions and estimates. The theory of how economies ought to be run and integrated with in society stems from our moral and social agendas.

With this in mind, I suppose my own ideas about where the government plays a role in economics is based in my ideas about the potential of the US to be a land of the greatest opportunity and freedom. My personal sense of fairness, admittedly rooted in intuition and attitude more than any seriou soul searching, bids that I support whatever system keeps teh greatest number of people in good straights. In this way I would expect the wealthy and the nameless (corporations) to take on a tax burden, as the quality of their lives is affected less in proportion to the poorer amongst us. The poor are more apt to endure suffering as economic penalties deplete what little wealth they have been able to accumulate. In theory this keeps them poor as their children have less access, limiting their chances for success (apologies for the abstraction of this).

Of course, it is unrealistic to suggest that society will not always be stratified . There will always be haves and have nots in a market economy. I would propose that heavily taxing those who have the very most for the benefit of those with hardly any isn't a true compromise of freedom, but in fact it is, as are nearly all taxes. The Tom Clancy fans seem to love the slogan 'freedom isn't free,' which I obviously lean towards, but in reality any capitulation to the state is compromise. So, as you both said much mroe succinctly, it's far mroe of a moral and philosophical debate. I admire the personal responsibility and gusto of the Libertarian view of all this, but there is a certain humanist and interpretational concepts about the proper role of governance and the social contract that sway me in the other direction as well. Personal responsibility and a Darwinian model of society appeal to me intellectually, but my only cursory pondering on the matter lead me to believe that the full application of such ideas is one of the concepts that thrives on the printed page but vaporizes in application.

That is not to say I have any qualification to really say so, more just an impression. Ultimately I still subscribe to the synthesis of approach as we can best mold it our needs. Things need neither be fully in one camp or another, and given the highly contended accuracy of any set economic approaches, which in practice I all find ridiculous given the constantly changing variables of economies, perhaps leaving the theory and practice maliable to the circumstances is our best bet. The best and worst approach may ebb and flow too fast for us to ever secure a hold on either.

 

[Casey]

Bush's economic plans are irresponsible, b/c in the end, all the growth is at the expense of cutting social programs, larger tax cuts for citizens at the higher end of the wealth spectrum, and Huge Federal Deficits.