blackout of news from District court Hawaii

[cynicalflyer]

If people would just think to themselves every year for the first 113 days I just worked my entire day just to pay my supposed "fair share" to the taxman things would change. The politicians and the socialist whiners have an uncanny ability to drowned us in obfuscation.

Not really Steve, you are conflating several separate things.
1) What is the proper role/function of government?
2) What is the best way to fund those roles/functions?
3) What is the fairest way to fund those roles/functions?
4) What is a constitutional way to fund those roles/functions?

Note that the best way and fairest way and a constitutional way are all entirely separate questions, and that "best" and "fair" are entirely subjective (best as in easiest to collect? fairest as in more progressive/least regressive?).

You want to fold 2-4 together as though somehow they are the same (i.e. that to be constitutional it must be the best way and the fairest). It doesn't. The particular method or means to collect taxes can be incredibly stupid but perfectly constitutional. And a particular method could be incredibly fair and unconstitutional. And none of this has anything to do with 1).

That's not obfuscation. It might be completely over your head, but that's not the same thing as obfuscation.

[alohabunny]

According to the GAO many of the largest corporations in the country who have made billions and billions in profits have not paid any federal income taxes for several years, and it is perfectly legal. Many individuals hire tax consultants to figure out ways to minimize paying too much tax to the various governments. Mr. Bennett could have used some of his considerable money to get better advice than Lamar Hardy or Mr. Beecraft have given him.

Anyone who has that kind of income needs to have expert advice on how to best account for and spend it. Of course we feel badly for Mr. Bennett that he did not seek professional advice. Lamar Hardy did not get out of the 9th grade, he was passing himself off as a professional when he was really a con artist who was only interested in telling people what they wanted to hear for a fee. If Mr. Bennett had had any real professional accounting done for him, he would most likely have been able to reduce his tax liability to a much more reasonable amount. So far, he has been taking exceptionally poor advice.

[SteveSy]

If people would just think to themselves every year for the first 113 days I just worked my entire day just to pay my supposed "fair share" to the taxman things would change. The politicians and the socialist whiners have an uncanny ability to drowned us in obfuscation.

Not really Steve, you are conflating several separate things.
1) What is the proper role/function of government?
2) What is the best way to fund those roles/functions?
3) What is the fairest way to fund those roles/functions?
4) What is a constitutional way to fund those roles/functions?

Note that the best way and fairest way and a constitutional way are all entirely separate questions, and that "best" and "fair" are entirely subjective (best as in easiest to collect? fairest as in more progressive/least regressive?).

You want to fold 2-4 together as though somehow they are the same (i.e. that to be constitutional it must be the best way and the fairest). It doesn't. The particular method or means to collect taxes can be incredibly stupid but perfectly constitutional. And a particular method could be incredibly fair and unconstitutional. And none of this has anything to do with 1).

That's not obfuscation. It might be completely over your head, but that's not the same thing as obfuscation.

I never even mentioned the constitution. I'm simply saying on its face regardless of what may or may not be the law its wrong. Its as wrong as China stamping out, freedom of speech and assembly of its citizens. The "obfuscation" is the means they use to confuse us in to not realizing we're getting totally screwed.

[cynicalflyer]

I never even mentioned the constitution. I'm simply saying on its face regardless of what may or may not be the law its wrong. Its as wrong as China stamping out, freedom of speech and assembly of its citizens.

Wrong how?
Wrong in that the income tax is inefficent?
Wrong in that is it too regressive?
Wrong morally?
Wrong ethically?

[SteveSy]

I never even mentioned the constitution. I'm simply saying on its face regardless of what may or may not be the law its wrong. Its as wrong as China stamping out, freedom of speech and assembly of its citizens.

Wrong how?
Wrong in that the income tax is inefficent?
Wrong in that is it too regressive?
Wrong morally?
Wrong ethically?

All of the above. It takes from the productive and gives it to the unproductive and the inefficient.

[Judge Roy Bean]

I never even mentioned the constitution. I'm simply saying on its face regardless of what may or may not be the law its wrong. Its as wrong as China stamping out, freedom of speech and assembly of its citizens.

Wrong how?
Wrong in that the income tax is inefficent?
Wrong in that is it too regressive?
Wrong morally?
Wrong ethically?

All of the above. It takes from the productive and gives it to the unproductive and the inefficient.

Where else could it be taken from?

By definition, the unproductive have nothing to take.

We will always have this arrangement; those who have will be taxed and those that don't won't.

My work here is done, you're welcome.

[cynicalflyer]

All of the above. It takes from the productive and gives it to the unproductive and the inefficient.

I see. So anyone who is not as you define "productive" should receive nothing. The "inefficient" should be provided no government goods or services whatsoever. Only those deemed by SteveSy (or some other as yet to be named source) as "productive" are to be allowed government goods and services.

Uh, ok.

[alohabunny]

Steve's hypothesis that tax money should go to those deserving individuals who have "contributed" something is laughably flawed as is proven by the enormous historical record of the squandering of mountains of taxpayer's money to military dictators and puppet governments around the world, an unlimited CIA budget that has paid for death and destruction upon the earth and the planet, and the parasites in Washington that pretend to represent us, wars of aggression for profits to the private corporations, etc., etc. I would bet that none of that even bothers Steve. It is just those lazy welfare mothers and their bastard children that gets him.

[LPC]

Not really Steve, you are conflating several separate things.

Whoa, grasshopper.

I think your first post was this morning. Now you've got nine. And you want to stick your nose up to its elbows in Sybil?

(I think I should get some kind of award for the most disturbing mixed metaphor of the day/month/year/millenium.)

Take a break. Pace yourself.

[SteveSy]

Steve's hypothesis that tax money should go to those deserving individuals who have "contributed" something is laughably flawed as is proven by the enormous historical record of the squandering of mountains of taxpayer's money to military dictators and puppet governments around the world, an unlimited CIA budget that has paid for death and destruction upon the earth and the planet, and the parasites in Washington that pretend to represent us, wars of aggression for profits to the private corporations, etc., etc. I would bet that none of that even bothers Steve. It is just those lazy welfare mothers and their bastard children that gets him.

It shouldn't go to anyone in particular. It should go for the general welfare of the nation, roads post offices, national defense, foreign commerce regulation etc..

The government shouldn't be in the business of taking from one to give it to another.

[LPC]

Steve's hypothesis that tax money should go to those deserving individuals who have "contributed" something is laughably flawed as is proven by the enormous historical record of the squandering of mountains of taxpayer's money to military dictators and puppet governments around the world, an unlimited CIA budget that has paid for death and destruction upon the earth and the planet, and the parasites in Washington that pretend to represent us, wars of aggression for profits to the private corporations, etc., etc. I would bet that none of that even bothers Steve. It is just those lazy welfare mothers and their bastard children that gets him.

It shouldn't go to anyone in particular. It should go for the general welfare of the nation,

As long as "the nation" has been "productive." Otherwise, f**k it, and the people who live in it.

[SteveSy]

Steve's hypothesis that tax money should go to those deserving individuals who have "contributed" something is laughably flawed as is proven by the enormous historical record of the squandering of mountains of taxpayer's money to military dictators and puppet governments around the world, an unlimited CIA budget that has paid for death and destruction upon the earth and the planet, and the parasites in Washington that pretend to represent us, wars of aggression for profits to the private corporations, etc., etc. I would bet that none of that even bothers Steve. It is just those lazy welfare mothers and their bastard children that gets him.

It shouldn't go to anyone in particular. It should go for the general welfare of the nation,

As long as "the nation" has been "productive." Otherwise, f**k it, and the people who live in it.

No one is saying to forbid charity, just don't seize someone else's property by force, give to someone else and sit and proudly proclaim you're compassionate, caring and understanding and those individuals you seized property from who complain are unfeeling, greedy and self-centered. Since you're in to doing that why not really show your benevolence and go get a gang together, pillage and loot wealthy neighborhoods and give it to those you think are worthy of your compassion.

[alohabunny]

Steve, "No one is saying to forbid charity, just don't seize someone else's property by force, give to someone else and sit and proudly proclaim you're compassionate, caring and understanding and those individuals you seized property from who complain are unfeeling, greedy and self-centered. While you're doing that why not go get a gang together, pillage and loot wealthy neighborhoods and give it to those you think are worthy of your compassion."

WHEN DID THAT HAPPEN???

[SteveSy]

Steve, "No one is saying to forbid charity, just don't seize someone else's property by force, give to someone else and sit and proudly proclaim you're compassionate, caring and understanding and those individuals you seized property from who complain are unfeeling, greedy and self-centered. While you're doing that why not go get a gang together, pillage and loot wealthy neighborhoods and give it to those you think are worthy of your compassion."

WHEN DID THAT HAPPEN???

When the government takes 33% of someone's earnings to give it to other people they are doing just that. You might as well be ripping off 33% of your neighbors paycheck every week to give to those you feel need it more. In substance it's exactly the same. We've ripped our neighbors so often most don't even fight us anymore, when they do though we punish them severely.

[alohabunny]

Steve, what about when this government funnels that 33% to dictators and puppet CIA operatives to conduct false falg operations and stir up trouble around the world, you are crying about a tiny amount of money given to the poor while trillions are squandered on oil and other wars for the profit of the private industry, you seem to be oblivious to that even more costly practice as though you approve...........did you know that the US military has been protecting the pipelines in Nigeria for the Chevron oil company for years now?? That is taxpayer's money being used to the benefit of a huge highly profitable comapny that could/should pay for their own security. Your focus is on pennies for the needy when you should be really looking where and to whom the majority of the taxpayer's money is really going.........our shameful warmongering.

[SteveSy]

Steve, what about when this government funnels that 33% to dictators and puppet CIA operatives to conduct false falg operations and stir up trouble around the world, you are crying about a tiny amount of money given to the poor

Are you insane?

The entitlement programs are by far the largest part of the federal budget, deficit and national debt.

while trillions are squandered on oil and other wars for the profit of the private industry, you seem to be oblivious to that even more costly practice as though you approve.

I don't approve...in fact I think our government is responsible for most of the problems we're facing with Islamic terrorists and our last stint with Saddam. Truly amazing we funded both of them when it suited our political desires.

..........did you know that the US military has been protecting the pipelines in Nigeria for the Chevron oil company for years now?? That is taxpayer's money being used to the benefit of a huge highly profitable comapny that could/should pay for their own security. Your focus is on pennies for the needy when you should be really looking where and to whom the majority of the taxpayer's money is really going.........our shameful warmongering.

I'm right there with ya.....its all crap. btw, it's not "pennies" its trillions upon trillions our liabilities with the welfare programs is estimated at around 50 trillion dollars last estimate by the GAO and Treasury Dept. Let me write that out for you 50,000,000,000,000.00, that's far past the penny mark. Maybe this will help, if you saved one dollar every single second it would take you 1,584,400 years to save up enough to cover our current liabilities.

This number excludes such items as the gap between the present value of future promised and funded Social Security and Medicare benefits, veterans’ health care, and a range of other liabilities (e.g., federal employee and veteran benefits payable), commitments, and contingencies that the federal government has pledged to support. Including these items, the federal government’s fiscal exposures now total more than $46 trillion, up from about $20 trillion in 2000. This translates into a burden of about $156,000 per American or approximately $375,000 per full-time worker, up from $72,000 and $165,000 respectively, in 2000. These amounts do not include future costs resulting from Hurricane Katrina or the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Continuing on this unsustainable path will gradually erode, if not suddenly damage, our economy, our standard of living, and ultimately our national security.

- 2005 Financial Report of the U.S. Government (GAO)