Atlanta, Washington singing from same hymnal on tax reform

Linda

March 4th, 2011
7:31 pm

Since I’m first, I’m asking everyone to be civil. Stick to your points. Refrain from insults. Let’s try it! If you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say it.

Michael H. Smith

March 4th, 2011
7:34 pm

You are not going to allow me to say what I tried to post?

Why not?

Michael H. Smith

March 4th, 2011
7:38 pm

Let all these politicians first make their spending flatter, simpler and alot lower. Then I might believe they will actually do what they are now saying, rather than going to raise taxes in the process.

Hillbilly Deluxe

March 4th, 2011
8:17 pm

I’d like to see a tax code with no credits, no deductions and all types of income are taxed at the same rate. You make “X” amount of dollars, you pay “Y” % of “X” in taxes. It’s a pipe dream that I don’t expect to ever see.

Any change in the tax code should be revenue neutral and not a hidden tax increase.

Linda

March 4th, 2011
8:39 pm

So far, so good!

Jason

March 4th, 2011
9:51 pm

” Of course, unlike Washington, the state balances its budget each year and hasn’t racked up trillions in debt.”

What do you call bonds? Georgia doesn’t have trillions owed but it’s still quite a bit. I don’t know how anyone can say it’s not debt. How many years of gas tax revenue and Federal highway money is it going to take to pay off the bonds already issued by GDOT? Twenty? Thirty? How is that not debt?

Jason

March 4th, 2011
9:53 pm

@Hillbilly, any change to the tax code is going to be a tax increase for somebody. It might be revenue neutral for the state but it certainly won’t be payment neutral for individuals. There will be winners (some big time winners) and losers (probably not any huge losers but more of them). Expect a select few to make out like bandits and the rest to pay to cover the change.

Jane

March 4th, 2011
10:04 pm

An interesting idea but I withhold judgment until I see the specifics. Which deductions and credits will be done away with–the home mortgage deduction, that has helped millions of middle class families achieve the dream of home ownership and have more money in their pockets? The provision that allows employees to save money for retirement in pre-tax dollars–something that will become even more important as pensions become a quaint anachronism and politicians seem intent on slashing social security? Is it the provision that provides tax relief to save for college, another factor that will be especially important in Georgia as money for HOPE dwindles. While the rich do benefit from deductions and loopholes, the primary beneficiaries for many current deductions are the middle class. If Congress tries to take away those benefits, they’re going to have a very hard sell.

get out much?

March 4th, 2011
11:25 pm

whenever I hear the phrase “tax reform” I ask a simple question: “Who pays more and who pays less”.

Linda

March 5th, 2011
6:18 am

Stick it in your ear.

Michael H. Smith

March 5th, 2011
6:26 am

Why does someone have to pay more, g.o.m.? Is it cast in concrete somewhere that government has to spend more and grow more? Actually, spend more and grow more beyond the ability of economic expansion to accommodate government spending in terms of revenue? If so, then that is a zero-sum-game, where wealth is only being transferred and not created. Blame the evil rich all we want but the evilest of all the rich is our own evil government.

On deductions and credits, it is time to have a come to Jesus moment, Jane. Home mortgage deductions are subsidies, plain and simple. The biggest reward from this subsidy goes to bankers, developers and realtors, with we the house buyers getting a few table scraps called mortgage deductions. Government should never have got into the housing business. In fact, government needs to get out and stay out of business altogether to resume its’ given role of governing. It is becoming harder for me to justify governance by using the “carrot and stick” philosophy: Where government is creating a market for something by creating a false demand that the public either cannot afford or does not want, which usually creates a “bubble” that eventually burst and collapses as we have all recently witnessed; et al Wall Street, Banks, Freddie and Fannie Ma etc. This fiscal mess will take many years to clean up economically. Any guess as to who will pay the cost for the clean-up? grr!

On your second point Jane, and I do applaud you for bringing this to fore, because it is the rightful basis for how government should have provided a major portion of what is often referred to as the “Safety Net”, by allowing individuals to escape the onus of taxation. Some may think that I’m against things like Social Security, Medicare and other social programs, which is false. What I’m against is the government’s role in these social programs that were chiefly the idea of Teddy Roosevelt not his cousin Franklin. I’m actually in total agreement with the concept of the “Safety Net” TR desired by way of fair play and the square deal, later to become the new deal. However, the control and ownership of this deal should have been individualized under government oversight not the other-way-round as we have it today.

Government should not be the provider of anything other than governance, wherein government should serve as the enabler and facilitator of the means whereby we provide for ourselves the wealth and “safety net” we all commonly need.

No matter what Congress tries it will have a hard sell but it is time for Congress to be honest with the American people and make the choices that very few of us will like. As was recently said, either they make the decisions now or the decisions will be made for them.

Ron Paul/Herman Cain 2012

March 5th, 2011
7:36 am

Simplify everything with the FAIRTAX !!

END the income tax, audit and abolish the Federal Reserve, and watch the biggest economic boom this country has ever seen.

Still Waiting For the Trickle Down

March 5th, 2011
7:40 am

MHS

Perhaps government should never have gotten into the housing business, but the deduction certainly helps blunt the blows of the banking industry, which never should have gotten into the amortization business. Paying twice or three times the value of the home over the term of the loan is highway robbery.

Toby

March 5th, 2011
7:41 am

Nothing good will come of this, you can take that to the bank. When one class makes all the rules you know who they will favor.

Still Waiting For the Trickle Down

March 5th, 2011
7:48 am

What are the down sides of the Fair Tax? I’m no economist, but I’m also dubious about something so heavily touted by the millionaire class. Makes me think the benefits must be tremendous for the likes of Neal Boortz.

jconservative

March 5th, 2011
8:31 am

Our critical problem is not taxes. Our critical problem is spending.

So let’s tackle spending first, then taxes.

I propose we review the role of the US in the world. Defense is 23% of our annual spending. And it is going up. To date we really do not know what we will get for our $1 trillion investment in Iraq. By the time we get out of Afghanistan we will be light another $1 trillion and to date we have no idea what we will get out of it.

I am fairly sure we could use the $2 trillion in cash.

Remember Cheney saying that one reason he liked toppling Saddam was he liked the idea of oil at $20 a barrel?

So lets review the US role in the world before tackling tax reforms. We may end up changing nothing on our role in the world, just keeping on keeping on. But we have not had such a review in 70 years.
It is past time to do so.

And I have not even mentioned domestic spending.

Please, let’s handle our spending problem before we tackle taxes.

Michael H. Smith

March 5th, 2011
8:54 am

Still Waiting For the Trickle Down ~

Deductions probably didn’t blunt the blows of the banking industry or from it. Deductions in reality more than likely only camouflaged the hammer that has been used to have beaten us upon that all too inviting government supplied anvil, which regrettably has shaped the housing market and all the profiting parties thereof, as we miserably know it and them today. Eventually we the consumers pay the majority of the tab when the real bills comes due (all compounded of course), in one way, shape, form or another for all the blue smoke and mirrors, hokus-pokus shell games and voodoo economics that were used.

Michael H. Smith

March 5th, 2011
8:57 am

Our critical problem is not taxes. Our critical problem is spending.

At times I believe you and I are the only two people in this country that actual get it.

JB

March 5th, 2011
9:08 am

As heard in IROBOT — “now that is the was right question to ask” — I am encouraged to see it recognized here and yes it is relevant and of common interest across both sides of the aisle and for those in the middle, if the subsidies to those benefiting and used as a competitive advantage are seen for what they are.

“But I think a lot of Republicans have come to realize, we subsidize a lot of activities. And we do some of it with direct spending, and we do a lot of it in the tax code. And doing it in the tax code isn’t better.”

Not all tax cuts are created equal, of course, and government shouldn’t pick winners through tax or spending policy. Better to let individuals and businesses make decisions on the economic merits, rather than inviting them to choose based on tax treatment.

Michael H. Smith

March 5th, 2011
9:14 am

Remember Cheney saying that one reason he liked toppling Saddam was he liked the idea of oil at $20 a barrel?

Yes, I do. If we used our own natural resources we could topple all the despots like Saddam and stop subsidizing our oil rich enemies while paying for a military capable of policing the world in the image as we (or as our politicians and corporations) would like it to be. Until the body politic is set aside to allow the corpus principle to serve this rightful purpose in efficacy nothing will change; and we shall not see energy independence, let alone a sound relational strategic national and global energy policy.

ml

March 5th, 2011
9:24 am

the rax system should simplifiedand the same for everyone. that stupid ‘fare’ tax isn’t. are tax code should be simple that an 8th could completely understand it all. and we should all dispell the myth that taxes are bad. that’s too broad a brush stroke. we need taxes, we need the things that we have that help us. by being brainwashed on another thing by politicians is ruining the budgets everywhere. and when they lower taxes just to get people to elect them you know what happens. roadblocks, speed tickets, petty little tickets, etc. all increase. folks, they are going to get their money somehow. can’t we just pay the protection money up front? instead of some surprise and inflated money grab from cops or property or ad valorem later. don’t want high taxes, but tearing down America because we don’t feel like paying to keep it up is not the answer.

two things off subject-

the young basketball player that died this weekend highlights the failure of the people of this country to realize how important and necessary health care for all of us is. if he could have affordedt, if he had access to it, his condition could’ve detected and he coujld be alive today. to understand the benefits of all Americans having healthcare is not liberal and it’s not the devil’s socialism. when a country’s people are healthier, they are more able to defend their country, in so many ways. that kid could’ve lived. and deserved to.

why are republicans worrying about a gay marriage ban? why? if we made God our president it wouldn’t even be on his list of things to do for America. and if it were, it wouldn’t be in the top 10,000 things he would need to do first. our country is in serious trouble and republicans and their enablers are worried about gay marriage. it’s mind blowing to watch people allowing this happen. and totally unpatriotic. if your car has a flat tire and the cigarette lighter isn;t working, which one would you fix first? well i would fix the flat tire, but not republicans, they would go on and on about that cigarette lighter and may not even ever get around to getting it fixed. the whole time things are going bad because that care can’t go anywhere because of the tire. can’t go to work, can’t take a sick parent to medical care, can’t pick up the kids, etc. but let’s worry about that damn cigarette lighter. that’s what worrying about gay marriage is like in these times. it’s all grandstanding, all a waste of money we don’t have and all more of the distractions used to keep us not focused on the crapm that they are doing that is hurting us all. it’s time to get real and stop playing games that are ruining America and hurting everyone.

Doug E

March 5th, 2011
9:24 am

The problem is us. We want what we want and have no qualms about the government seizing somebody else’s money to provide it. The legislators dare not cut spending that we demand. Every line in evey budget has a constituency(sp). The problem will not be solved until we bring our expectations back down to earth.

Screwy Louie

March 5th, 2011
9:27 am

Linda the First- SHUT UP and make the coffee. Just kidding but it was a juicy setup.

I hope everyone plays nice and has a wonderful day. Now get out there and give your legislators an earful on why they need to lower taxes and reduce spending.

Corey

March 5th, 2011
9:53 am

Our law makers promise us that state income taxes will go down over time if these new taxes are enacted. There is a psychological affect that they are not taking into account. People are use to having a certain amount of their pay withheld for state taxes and don’t miss that because they never have that money in thier hands. On the other hand, when people have to start shelling out more at the checkout for everyday purchases for goods and services they will shop less thus, even less revenue for the state and less business for small businesses, creeping unemployment and an anemic economy.

John Galt

March 5th, 2011
10:17 am

First and foremost we need to eliminate the wealth tax known as property taxes. Regardless of income, you must paid based on what is the “perceived” value of what is probably your largest asset. Even if you down own 100% of it, you pay a tax on it as if you did.

Property taxes are also unbalanced taxation. You are a single parent with a home, and your relative property taxes are twice that of a home with two adults. Yet you could argue that the two adults put more of a burden on the community than one adult. There is nothing fair about this scenario.

Second, we need some truth in taxation. Too many taxes are hidden, and none of us really know with any certainty what we are truly paying. This enables the politicians to keep pulling the wool over our eyes. Knowing the politicians it is now synthetic wool.

And we should indeed eliminate not some, but all deductions. We all have the same vested interest and we will all be involved in how our money is spent. If you pay little or no taxes, you do not even have to bother with what is happening.

retiredds

March 5th, 2011
10:28 am

The beauty of the deficit problem is that the politicians have to come up with solutions that are sound and far reaching. The can has been kicked since the Reagan administration and has been completely crushed. So we’ll see if the current crop of Republicans and Democrats can actually come up with a long range plan absent their respective ideologies the will begin to reduce the accumulated deficit of $14+ trillion that both parties have had a significant contribution, no matter their slogans and spins. I won’t hold my breath, but there is no place to go but up (but in this case up is down with regard to deficits and budget shenanigans, the latter made to fool most of the people most of the time).

iReport, Liberals Whine

March 5th, 2011
10:38 am

Anyone seen the liberal main stream media and liberal Dimocrats whine about gas prices yet like they were in 2008 when Bush was president? {cricket chirp…cricket chirp..cricket chirp}. And didn’t King Obama state on the campaign trail that if he were president gas prices would never again see $4/gallon? How come the liberal media isn’t calling his failed promises back to the news? Oh wait, they voted for him of course. Meanwhile our wonderful Governor backs keeping the GA400 toll alive and well. Reagan was right in countless ways (and wrong in some others), but he was never more right when he stated “there is nothing so permanent as a temporary government program.”

Now let’s see what taxes are going up under the wonderful presidency of His Majesty, King Obama (all bow to His Greatness):

“The top income tax rate will rise from 35 to 39.6% (this is also the rate at which two-thirds of small business profits are taxed). The lowest rate will rise from 10 to 15%. All the rates in between will also rise. The “marriage penalty” (narrower tax brackets for married couples) will return from the first dollar of income. The child tax credit will be cut in half from $1000 to $500 per child. In 2010 there was no death tax. For those dying this year and every year after, there is a 55% top death tax rate on estates over $1 million. A person leaving behind two homes and a retirement account could easily pass along a death tax bill to their loved ones. Small businesses can normally expense (rather than slowly-deduct, or “depreciate”) equipment purchases up to $250,000. This will be cut all the way down to $25,000. The capital gains tax will rise from 15% this year to 20 percent in 2011. Likewise the dividends tax rises from 15% to 39.6%. These rates will rise another 3.8% in 2013.”

Meanwhile on to other news……..

“Lockheed said its wage package calls for increases of 3 percent, 3 percent and 2.5 percent each of the three years, totaling 8.5 percent. It also said it offered a $2,500 ratification bonus and an annual cost of living adjustment.”

That sounds pretty fair to me. The machinist union there however is still pondering a strike after midnight this Sunday. You just have to love unions. By the way, how come the liberal main stream media isn’t telling us that both Missouri and Colorado do not have collective bargaining for public service employees? Could it be because both governators are Democrats? They sure as hell are feeding the frenzy in Wisconsin. A frenzy that goes violent with union goons beating people up. And that’s the same liberal media of course that told us that the Tea Party was violent.

That fat hypocritical greasy neo-communist liberal pig, Michael Moore, got on some show “The Blaze” and said that the wealthy’s money is a NATIONAL RESOURCE and not private property. In other words, everyone who is “rich” should have it confiscated by the federal government and I suppose handed out to crack addicts and the homeless and those who sit at home on their fatasses watching Oprah on their 50″ plasmas while living on welfare. No word yet on if The Pig will open up and donate his millions. Learjet Liberals…you just have to love to hate them. No wonder nobody wanted the Irish a century ago.

we like taxes

March 5th, 2011
10:43 am

we are the Republican party and we like taxes. we tell you we don’t but we love them and money more than America. but don’t question us. don’t you dare. because we love children and families. we love Jesus and even though Jesus doesn’t think so, we are his favorites. we’ll tear down America just of rmoney, but we’re patriots and you cn’t question that, because we know how to invalidate others and we are the best at it. don’t question us even as we say things like: “I think all of us recognize the need for toll roads,” Sen. John Albers, R-Roswell. because we all know that tolls aren’t taxes, no sir, just think of it as a tithe, yeah that’s it. everytime you go thru a toll booth and give them money it goes straight to God. that’s right. everybody knows that. and if you question us, we’ll call you names in front of others. our patron saint the almighty Reagan raised taxes 6 of the 8 years he was in office for all the people of this country that serve and have sons who serve in the military but thank goodness he was wise enough not to lower the taxes for all those that have more money than they will be able to spend in 3 or 4 lifetimes. but that was different. because we may not need those that die in some foreign hellhole, they weren’t rich, they didn’t work hard enough or try hard enough, who needss them. but we all know that God loves rich people. because if we take care of rich people, they’ll take care us. how charitable they are. why they are so kind and generous and always thinking of the children that sometimes the peasants have to shovel all that trickle down money out of their driveways first just to be able to get the car out. so remember, we like taxes, oops, excuse me, I mean tithe. it all those darn liberals, yeah, that’s right liberals that ask for money for bad reasons. stupid stuff like sick people and the elderly. without us and our rich friends the liberals with their yellow fanged teeth and demonic red eyes will sneak into your house and eat your whole family at night. now you don’t want that do you? we in the Republican party we are looking out for you. so don’t question us or doubt us we’re looking for that. we’re looking for those heretics. that’s why everytime you hear of a married Republican having sex with another man while they are voting against gay rights and talking about the sacred bond of marriage, it’s because we are testing your faith. drawing out the evil wicked liberals that may question us so that they shall punished for their insubordination. give us your money and we will give it to the rich people then they will give it back to you ten fold. what a deal, huh? only a sinner wouldn’t go for a good deal like that. so don’t question us, we are looking for you and we never do bad. we go to church. see. anybody tht goes to church is a good person. everybody knows that. no one would ever go to church just to cover or legitimize their bad behavior. why that would be wrong. and wrong is bad and we’re never bad. and we’ll only do things that help the United States. you do love the United States don’t you. well ok then.

Truth

March 5th, 2011
10:43 am

The last time gas was $4+/gallon the economy was rolling and people were making $. This time the economy is in the tank and the majority of people are not doing well financially.
Obama IS Jimmy Carter!

Union Goon

March 5th, 2011
10:48 am

The entire nation attempting to do with less except the greedy union parasites!

Now to the union slugs at Lockheed. To show what greedy, parasitic morons you are, is it smart to go on strike during a depression? I hope you do and hope the company fires you parasites so those happy to work for already overpriced wages can get your job!!!!

Lockheed Martin union could strike SundayBy David Markiewicz

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

5:45 p.m. Friday, March 4, 2011

Machinists union workers at Lockheed Martin’s Marietta plant vote Sunday on whether to go on strike.

About 3,800 employees represented by Local 709 of the International Association of Machinists have been asked by union leaders to reject what the company termed its “last, best and final economic proposal” for a new three-year contract.

The current contract expires at 12:01 a.m. Monday. Members are to take a strike vote Sunday between noon and 8 p.m., with results expected by 10 p.m. If they opt to walk out, they will staff picket lines after midnight.

The union said the company is offering wage hikes lower than those in past contracts and that the proposed pension plan “punishes” new and rehired workers by eliminating the defined benefit that would give them a fixed monthly payment in retirement.

“That is the key issue,” said Denise Rakestraw, president of Local 709. She also said fewer health care coverage options will be offered.

Lockheed said its wage package calls for increases of 3 percent, 3 percent and 2.5 percent each of the three years, totaling 8.5 percent. It also said it offered a $2,500 ratification bonus and an annual cost of living adjustment.

“We are very confident that the package we have offered is industry leading,” said Erica Crosling, a company spokeswoman. “You’re not going to find those benefits in a lot of other places.”

Lockheed called the retirement changes for new workers, “an important step … to remain competitive in our industry.”

Crosling said non-union personnel would take on additional duties if a strike occurs.

Workers in Marietta struck over contracts in 2002 and 2005, but voted overwhelmingly to ratify a three-year deal in March 2008, ending a strike threat that year.

Local 709 represents factory, technical and office workers including mechanics, electronics technicians and assemblers. The Marietta facility has just under 8,000 total employees. The facility has five production lines, with the C-130J transport and the F-22 fighter as its main products.

Find this article at:
http://www.ajc.com/business/lockheed-martin-union-could-861070.html

interested observer

March 5th, 2011
10:56 am

I don’t trust the GOP in Washington or Atlanta to devise a tax code that treats people fairly. That said, the Democrats sure haven’t done anything, so it is cautiously encouraging to see more serious discussions of how to raise revenue and cut spending.

Most deductions and tax credits were created to the benefit of special interests, and it is entirely appropriate to eliminate some of those – not exactly a tax hike, but achieves the same thing. As hard as it will be to close loopholes against the will and power of those who use them, it will be even more challenging to sustain them against the intense lobbying that will occur to reverse them from the moment they’re enacted. Much of the complexity of the current tax code can be traced to special provisions implemented for this or that group. That dynamic will not change, regardless of what system of taxation is implemented.

carlosgvv

March 5th, 2011
11:03 am

The idea is to lower taxes on Big Business and raise them on the middle and lower class. They can use smoke and mirrors to disguise this, but many voters will know better.

Edward

March 5th, 2011
11:06 am

How about the Federal gov’t making sure every state doesn’t receive any more Federal funding than they generate in revenue. Oh, wait, that would mean Georgia and almost all of the red states would get massive cuts in Federal dollars because they depend on those “librul” blue states to subsidize them. Maybe the “librul” blue states should demand their money not going to fund all those red states that love to suck up the gov’t welfare.

“Conservatives” really hate welfare and “socialism”, except when they’re receiving the benefits.

Will

March 5th, 2011
11:12 am

Why are all the republican newspaper writers and radio entertainers so grumpy about another month of declining unemployment numbers? Not one that I have heard or read can say anything better than, “yeah, that’s okay but…..”.

Do you think republican newspaper writers and republican radio entertainers are so grumpy because they know that if unemployment continues to decline, the President’s re-election will be virtually assured?

Fred

March 5th, 2011
11:25 am

Linda,

You seem nice…and misled. In pity, I’ll offer you some of my grub deconstruction gruel laid over a boiled pine needle noodle bed, once the food riots start and the fiat currency has been found out for the fraud it is.

Also, TAXATION IS THEFT!!!!!

Tax the Poor

March 5th, 2011
11:42 am

Republicans never met a regressive consumption or sales tax they didn’t like.

25% percent of private income goes to the top 1%. Still. Cut taxes for the rich. Raise taxes for the poor and/or the middle class via sales or value added taxes. That’s the Paul Ryan way. That’s the Kyle Wingfield way. That’s the Republican way.

jack

March 5th, 2011
12:15 pm

All the tax reformers cite the tax reform as REVENUE NEUTRAL, what they don’t say is that Revenue Neutral means t the state level not the taxpyer neutral. It merely shifts the tax burden from the haves to the have-nots/////

We need to send those jokers back to the drawing board.. that is my opinion and I am stuc with it……..

@@

March 5th, 2011
12:23 pm

The idea of broadening the tax base, closing loopholes and setting marginal rates as low and flat as possible isn’t new. Economists have long said such a tax code would cost less to enforce and follow, reduce distortions in the market, and punish success to a lesser degree.

Excellent! It’s always been the logical solution and now’s the time to implement it.

Most appealing to me, because it eliminates the class warfare…something Democrats have always used as their weapon. Justification for building up their cache or stash, if you will.

How many people see their tax refund as a savings account? Heck…a young couple I know is waiting for their refund so they can buy custom-made blinds to go over their kitchen window. How pathetic is that? Probably living above their means, much like our government.

The Original Get Real

March 5th, 2011
1:07 pm

iReport, Liberals Whine

Wow…entertaining read, a bit over the top but all in all I tend to agree with most of your points…

retiredds

March 5th, 2011
1:09 pm

Just for your information, those of you discussing gas prices. It has to do with market forces. The US has no control over the price of gas. It has nothing to do with who is president. It has everything to do with the fact that as the “great decider” GWB said in one of his State of the Union addresses, “we are addicted to oil”. Get off that addiction and then you will not be at the mercy of the global market for oil. There is an answer and it’s not drill baby drill but move as quickly as you can to alternatives. But as long as the US remains oil dependent you will have to pay the piper. And if the global price of a barrel of oil rises, as it will, you pay more.

The Original Get Real

March 5th, 2011
1:13 pm

we like taxes

Sounds like somebody is having a real bad day….

I heared he was an Ayrab

March 5th, 2011
1:13 pm

Anything that will fix the fact the GE, Bank of America, Exxon Mobil paid ZERO federal corporate taxes in 2009 despite the humongous profits they made? I will wait to see and hear what if anything these politricians do about that

The Original Get Real

March 5th, 2011
1:18 pm

retiredds @ 1:09 pm

“Just for your information, those of you discussing gas prices. It has to do with market forces.”

Understood…but it is interesting that Bush was lambasted and Obama gets a pass, must be that fair and balanced main stream media

The Original Get Real

March 5th, 2011
1:23 pm

Edward

Newsflash Slick….all or most of the blue states are bankrupt..

Linda

March 5th, 2011
1:29 pm

Kyle, Someone used my name to comment @ 6:18 AM in a negative way!

CONSERVITARDS

March 5th, 2011
1:35 pm

TRICKLE DOWN ECONOMICS DOESN’T WORK. IT NEVER HAS AND IT NEVER WILL.

DawgDad

March 5th, 2011
1:47 pm

No, seeing is believing. I have NO DOUBT what they’re after is the lost tax revenue from my home mortgage deduction and 401K pre-tax contributions. No doubt whatsoever. They’re tapped out on borrowing, printing money, and confiscating from taxpayers under the current structure, they have to find money somewhere or the Blue States will all collapse.

Yet, I have to pay a high-priced accountant to do my taxes and subsidize the bureaucratic nightmare of the IRS via taxes. It’s nuts. The current system is horrible, but how do you end all the tax code subsidies and loopholes without creating massive disruption of society and the economy? Show me the plan.Seeing is believing.

These are politicians, they generally exist to serve their own selfish interests, not mine, as we’ve recently witnessed with TARP, bailouts, Obamacare, etc. The current leadership in Washington is not about to do the right thing for the citizens of this country; even if the Heavens part and a good bill passes the House it’s DOA in the Senate or on the President’s desk. There’s no real Hope for Change until 2012 at the earliest.

Linda

March 5th, 2011
1:48 pm

CONSERVITARDS@1:35, Pres. Kennedy said in ‘63 to the Economics Club of NY, “…the paradoxical truth is that tax rates are too high & revenues are too low, & the soundest way to raise revenues in the long run is to lower taxes now.”
You would need to pass Econ 101 to understand.

retiredds

March 5th, 2011
2:04 pm

The Origianl Get Real, who gives a d..m. It is in everyone’s best interest in this country to decouple as much as possible from oil. I know it can’t be done entirely, but as much as possible. And if you, me and others keep focusing on the trivial matter of who gets lambasted or who gets a pass, NOTHING gets done. So get on your Congressman’s and Senator’s backs and tell them we want solutions not ideological “mumbo jumbo”. Who yells the loudest, who has the best slogan, who is the best spinmeister, does nothing but distract from the task which is to become less dependent upon oil.

Kingfish

March 5th, 2011
2:14 pm

How is all this related to the “birther” question?

Cutty

March 5th, 2011
2:15 pm

Linda, that may have been true years ago when you had somewhat ethical businessmen, but these honchos who are running corporations now are all about themselves. Record profits, but high unemployment is indicative of companies hiring less and keeping the profits.

Everyone, including Wingfield, enjoys bringing up the strawman theory of taxes, i.e., cap and trade, national sales tax, et al. But the fact is we’re paying the lowest rate in taxes in decades. And that is aside from the Bush tax cuts which are aimed at reducing the levels of taxes paid on money made on the stock market. Dividends for example. Income has stayed stagnant while consumer prices have risen since beginning of this decade. Kyle states that success shouldn’t be taxed. Well, success by any means necessary, like hedge fund managers and oil speculators who contribute nothing of value to anyone but themselves, should be taxed.

For the life of me, I will never understand why those in the middle class continue to vote for politicians who want to shower the rich with all the riches, then stick them with the bill. Prime example, Georiga republicans want to tax everything from a haircuts, to groceries and cell phone use, but cut taxes for corporations even though we have the 4th lowest tax climate in the nation.

retiredds

March 5th, 2011
2:24 pm

Cutty, we all know the reason why (even Kyle does, but he won’t admit it). Political contributions!!! The corporations, and their moneyed executives, have the $$$$ and the politicians like their $$$$. You and I can only contribute, if we contribute, .00000123% of what a corporate executive can contribute. It’s all about, follow the $$$$. And the Supreme Court has opened the flood gates with its most recent decision. And Kyle, tell me it ain’t so. Convince me with a well documented piece that what I post here is not true.

poison pen

March 5th, 2011
2:44 pm

Retireddds, I tried peeing in my cars gas tanks but then they wouldn’t start. We all know that all countries are addicted to oil, isn’t this better than cocain?

Seriously though, I think we all would like to be rid of the Saudies & other countries oil, but how? and at what cost?

poison pen

March 5th, 2011
2:51 pm

Cutty, whil I agree with a lot of what you say, I also believe that the Dems are just as bad as the repubs when it comes to their hand out for contributions.

They both get money from the large corporations and the dems also clean up with the unions. I think we need a third party for more competition or term limits for all politicans.

retiredds

March 5th, 2011
2:54 pm

Spread out over the next 15-20 years much less than the cost of doing nothing. Yes, there will have to be some subsidizing of alternatives, but what start-up, including oil, rail, the auto, air, roads, etc. have not been subsidized at some point in our nation’s history? My best guess is that if the U.S. could reduce its oil dependency to 25%-30% of total energy consumption, that would minimize the global price impact. I have no scientific basis for this other than a reasonable guess (sort of like and investment portfolio of having no more than 25% of one’s portfolio exposed to one industry). Someone else out there might have a more scientific based ratio.

Left wing management

March 5th, 2011
2:55 pm

Linda: 7:31: “Let’s try it! If you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say it”

Well, I guess that disqualifies me from the get-go.

C’mon, Linda, politics ain’t beanbag, Nor is the Wingfield page.

The Original Get Real

March 5th, 2011
2:59 pm

retiredds….I agree with all of that, but I am sick and tired of the one sided BS from the mainstream media.

Back to your main point, all forms of new energy sources should be explored but this will take time. In the meantime, shutting down the Gulf for new drilling is not the way to go….very short sighted and it is only playing to the far left….jobs lost and higher gas prices are the direct result

Ken

March 5th, 2011
2:59 pm

The state is now in the midst of reviewing tax reform recommendations. “Tax Reform” being a euphemism for taking money from people while making them think taxes are being lowered. Even now when Georgia unemployment is over 10% one suggestion is to tax groceries. Why? Because everyone must eat. Another suggestion is to create a funky new equation to tax gasoline. Why? Nearly everyone drives. T-SPLOST, E-SPLOST, taxing personal services… There is no end to the states desire for more and more money.

Under the guise of attracting business to Georgia, the State shows its true intention. Businesses are taxed more than people. Hence, more business in Georgia equals more tax money. The Oxford Dictionary defines greed as “a strong desire for more wealth, possessions, power, etc. than a person needs.” How much does the State need? Clearly, there is no end to the government’s desire to take money from its citizens and spend it.

The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines reform as “to put or change into an improved form or condition.” How is creating more tax targets an improved form or condition? Many small businesses will suffer an added cost of capturing, recording, reporting, and remitting taxes. Where is the benefit here except to the State? Driving some small businesses into the ground with onerous requirements doesn’t seem like an improvement to me.

Georgia was the last of the 13 original colonies to tax its citizens. But, in 1951, Georgia enacted what at that time was the most all-inclusive sales tax in the US.

The state broke its promise about ending the GA 400 Toll. As reported in the Atlanta newspaper, “The Ga. 400 toll was originally scheduled to come down when the bonds were paid off this summer. But in September the State Road and Tollway Authority board, with Gov. Sonny Perdue as its chairman, extended the toll until 2020 in order to build projects along the Ga. 400 corridor.”

In 2008, the Lottery surplus was sent to the State Treasury for the general fund. When it was voted in, the promise was that all of the money would be used for education and lottery expenses. The State again broke its promise to voters. Have we any reason to believe Georgia about tax reform being an improvement?

I remind the reader of the original Georgia Constitution of 1777 which states in part, “Whereas the conduct of the Legislature of Great Britain for many years past has been so oppressive on the people of America that of late years they have plainly declared and asserted a right to raise taxes upon the people of America, and to make laws to bind them in all cases whatsoever, without their consent; which conduct being repugnant to the common rights of mankind, hath obliged the Americans, as freemen, to oppose such oppressive measures”. We should not forget our state began with an opposition to constant tax increases.

The State of Georgia should confront the recession by making spending cuts as Georgia families have, not with sleight of hand ways to take money from its citizens. If our elected representatives won’t curtail State greed, we need to elect those who will.

CarGuy

The Original Get Real

March 5th, 2011
3:02 pm

Newsflash…yes corporations make political contributions but of the top 20 contributors, 10 are unions and only 5 are corporations…

independent

March 5th, 2011
3:18 pm

Just over two years into his administration and the GOP and Teaparty call the economy: Obama’s economy. That may be up for discussion, maybe not.
How many years does it take for you and the people of GA to consider the economic mess in GA to be a GOP mess? The GOP has been in control of the State House and Legislature for years. They spend their time fighting each other, fighting federal laws, cutting taxes, spending state money on private schools, cutting taxes for the wealthy, building fishing ponds, passing state laws that save the Governor money, cutting public education, furloughing public workers, selling the public highways to the private sector, blocking or ignoring federal funds for high speed rail and public transport, and destroying the economy of GA.
Mr. Wingfield, isn’t time for the GOP to get the GA house in order, or get out?

Mark

March 5th, 2011
3:56 pm

Fairtax is a hoot — a massive hidden tax. A preposterous bunch of nonsense.

http://fairtaxfineprint.blogspot.com/

jd

March 5th, 2011
4:03 pm

Georgia does run a deficit every year. It has been borrowing money to do maintenance since 2003. It has been refusing to fund long-term liabilities such as healthcare for retirees. It has deferred maintenance on bridges, buildings, and other major infrastructure upwards of $30 billion every year… And, it has been making swiss cheese of education budgets — on a per person basis spending less than we have in more than 25 years.

Linda

March 5th, 2011
4:21 pm

Cutty@2:15, Businessmen have not changed & neither have businesses. Whether they are a Pa & Ma alteration shop, a moderate sized business or an international corporation, businesses are in the business to make a profit. If they are not “keeping the profits,” what do you propose they do with them? Donate them?
You criticize money made in the stock market. Do you realize that 8 states have pensions invested in some type of 401 (k)? In ‘08, only 33% of private sector employees had a pension plan, which means that the other 67% of workers rely on social security or consider the stock market as a retirement plan. By investing in the stock market, Americans are investing in corporations that provide jobs. Americans are helping to pay for corporate facilities, plants, equipment & labor. Most corporations are OWNED by the American people, many of them old.

The Dems. didn’t even pass a budget last yr. The budget O came out with 2 wks. ago has a $1.645 T deficit! If the govt. taxed every person who makes over $500,000 100% of their income, the additional tax revenues would be $1.3 T & would still leave a budget deficit of $345 B! If the fed. govt. raised another $2 T in taxes, there would still be a $3 T deficit! O’s budget raises taxes & spends every penny & still leaves a deficits of $7.2 T he proposes to add to the $14.3 T debt we already have.
High income earners don’t stuff their money in their mattresses. Bottom line, should they be allowed to keep their own money & invest it in stock, bonds, products, plants, facilities, equipment, innovation, labor, etc. OR should they be forced to give it to the fed. govt. who is a better steward of money? Are jobs created by private enterprise/the private sector through free markets & capitalism OR thru the fed. govt.?

I'm with Stupid

March 5th, 2011
4:23 pm

Will,
“Why are all the republican newspaper writers and radio entertainers so grumpy about another month of declining unemployment numbers?”

In our age of ‘tit’ for ‘tat’, the answer to that would be that the Dem writers and Dem radio types, started with the “terrible” economy business almost from the beginning of Bush taking office. As in 2006 all you heard from the Dems was how bad the economy was, and how bad life had become. Think they were grumpy then because the economy really wasn’t that bad, but they were afraid Bush was going to be re-elected? It’s not right, but our sheep-like pundits, on both sides I might add, and their followers demand it.

Jed

March 5th, 2011
4:38 pm

We could balance the budget in Georgia if we did away with one district and senate seat at the dome/district. And a hiring freeze for the Deal!

Dusty

March 5th, 2011
4:39 pm

Folks,

I love your ideas with all the variety, but could you make it a little shorter and simpler. That would be nice.

As for me, I will go for “cut the taxes and cut the spending”. You see, I don’t profess to be a great economist or world wide scholar of finance. But it does not take a scholar to know that a 14 trillion $$$ debt is too much. Or that 8.9 unemployment is acceptable. So I am back to cut & diminish. Still sounds good.

Keep giving all the ideas. Someone might be listening who needs to know…

Linda

March 5th, 2011
4:39 pm

retirredds@2:24, Here’s the list of the top campaign donors for the last 20 yrs. You might notice that of the top 20 donors:
10 are unions & only 4 are corporations
15 gave more to Dems. than to Reps.
90% of all contributions went to Dems.

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php?order=A

Yes, “it’s all about, follow the $$$$.” Convinced yet?

Linda

March 5th, 2011
4:52 pm

Left@2:55, I’m tired of the petty name-calling. I had not been called names since childhood until I got on these blogs. Initially, I was insulted until I realized the strategy of attacking the messenger when facts could not be argued. I also just realized that the other two AJC blogs are government/union blogs. I hope we can keep more civility on Kyle’s.

I Report (-: You Whine )-: mmmmm, mmmm, mmm! Just sayin...

March 5th, 2011
5:14 pm

Geez, liberals don’t pay taxes, even if they do somehow owe them, so what do they care what the rate is?

Know what I’m sayin?

killerj

March 5th, 2011
5:26 pm

Smaller Government is the way to go,more money in your pocket, they are singing a different tune because people are fed up.Go Tea Party.

Left wing management

March 5th, 2011
5:32 pm

Linda: “Initially, I was insulted until I realized the strategy of attacking the messenger when facts could not be argued. I also just realized that the other two AJC blogs are government/union blogs. ”

I’m not sure about that, Linda. People here with fierce differences about first principles and so often people are arguing past each other. It’s almost easier to imagine the end of the world than someone on here actually having their opinion changed by the force of argument of an opponent. Just how it is. Not sure about the name calling. I don’t know about Wingfield, but Bookman’s blog is monitored for personal attacks. But again, it’s easy to insinuate evil things to those advancing arguments you find loathsome without calling names outright. Just goes with the territory.

Corey

March 5th, 2011
5:35 pm

A bi-partisan bill was passed under the last administration to phase out the use of filament light bulbs and move to a more energy efficient, longer lasting flourescent type bulb. Just yesterday one of Gerogia’s brilliant politicians held a press conference touting a way Georgia could opt out and continue to produce and use filament bulbs. The mean old federal government in Washington should not tell us what kind of light bulbs to use was basically his reason. The thought of a longer lasting bulb that’s more energy efficient is a double win is not as important as sticking it in the federal government’s eye with a shallow gesture to states rights.

Chris Matthews

March 5th, 2011
5:46 pm

The Fair Tax is the only way to go!

Linda

March 5th, 2011
6:17 pm

Corey@5:35, The packaging on these CFL bulbs merely gives a phone number & a website. According to the EPA website entitled “CFL Cleanup & Disposal,” the instructions include:
Have people & pets leave the room
Air out the room for 5-10 minutes…
Shut off the central forced air heating/A/C system…
Place cleanup materials in a sealable container
Promptly place all bulb debris & cleanup materials outdoors…until materials can be disposed of property…
If you click on “Find out how to recycle & dispose of a CFL after it burns out,” you will read that “some areas prohibit CFLs from being discarded into landfills” & should be taken to “HAZARDOUS WASTE drop-off locations.”

http://www.epa.gov/cfl/cflrecycling.html

These light bulbs will be in our schools, hospitals, places of employment & homes. These light bulbs are dangerous to humans, pets & the environment. They are over-rated as to their life. They are many times more expensive & will hurt the poor & the elderly on fixed incomes. They are inefficient (dim). They will not keep pipes from freezing in the winter or cause my yeast bread to rise. They represent Big Brother.

Linda

March 5th, 2011
6:38 pm

Corey, I made a mistake. The above EPA website is for disposal. This is the EPA website for cleanup:

http://www.epa.gov/cfl/cflcleanup.html

Linda

March 5th, 2011
8:12 pm

Left@5:32, Are you sayin’ I haven’t changed your opinion? I don’t know if I have changed anyone’s opinion, but I feel that I have contributed by confronting the lies & rhetoric from those of you from the left with govt. websites that prove otherwise & by injecting humor into the debates.
Conservatives, especially Tea Party members, have been called every name in the book by the left & the corrupt media. Rather than lash back & defend ourselves, it has emboldened us to continue our crusade for reducing the fed. govt.
I’ve been attacked on one of the other blogs by the host.
My husband & I have lived thru 12 presidents. We have NEVER seen anything like what is going on today, the intentional attempt to bring down the USA with debt, unemployment, entitlements & inflation.

Left wing management

March 5th, 2011
11:49 pm

Linda: My husband & I have lived thru 12 presidents. We have NEVER seen anything like what is going on today, the intentional attempt to bring down the USA with debt, unemployment, entitlements & inflation.

That’s quite a claim, Linda. I assume that you see the perpetrators of this “intentional attempt” as liberals in the current administration? Which would be an odd argument to make, especially since this government is only continuing a pattern of mostly unfunded expansions of debt pursued by the previous administration, such as the TARP bailout, two foreign wars, and a prescription drug plan. If there is a pattern of debt that threatens the country’s long-term fiscal viability, there’s plenty of blame to go around.

John Galt

March 6th, 2011
7:59 am

The problem is the perspective of the liberals left wing. Liberals cannot differentiate between a drink to relieve stress and lots of drinks getting you sloppy drunk.

They both involve consumption of alcohol. But the results are far different.

It goes the same for presidency’s. They both use the same tools, with different results as objectives.

An easy concept really. But we are all certain you will reject it.

Just as Ted Kennedy did…..

don

March 6th, 2011
8:53 am

Read / educate yourself on the Fair Tax. It is completely Non partisan and yes, Fair. See recent mention in Huffington Post. Anyone who speaks against it clearly knows nothing about it. This would create the biggest economic boom in generations. It eliminates the ridiculous IRS, and it stands by itself. It is not in addition to any other taxation.

I Report (-: You Whine )-: Credible, Compelling, Complete....Bwahahahaha, just sayin...

March 6th, 2011
9:07 am

Remember when Hitler was being bombarded in Berlin and he started giving orders to armies that didn’t exist?

Organized labor has been on a long decline, but the recent attacks against it in Wisconsin and elsewhere have had a surprising result — they have energized the nation’s unions.-Urinal

The libs and their union thugs have thrown hysteria at us, they’ve whined and they’ve moaned, the collapsed in a heap, they gnashed their teeth, they tore at their garments and now they are……..delusional.

Just “die” already, would ya?

Michael H. Smith

March 6th, 2011
9:47 am

As to claims and patterns set, that was established by the left in this country during the progressive or socialist era, beginning with President Woodrow Wilson (D). It has only progressed for the worse with ever expanding federal powers that were never given to the federal government in the Constitution. Only one amendment was ratified that took from state governments’ their rights of representation, the rest of the federal power grab perpetrated by the socialist left in this country has for the most part been done outside of the Constitutional process of amending the Constitution.

I agree with you Linda, I have never in my lifetime seen what appears to be the most aggressive agenda to dissolve America. Of course, had anyone been listening to Comrade dear leader Obama and his message of transforming America (NOT REFORMING) then we should not be so taken aback by the events we’ve witnessed. The fearful question we must ask is what does dear leader plan to transform America into, since it is obvious he had a very poor view of the unique America we knew before he took office.

The divide between socialist liberals and constitutional conservatives in this country has never been so clearly distinguished, even for those in the muddle middle riding the fence so to speak that can’t quite figure out where they belong can see the sharp dividing line of contest that is cast in political concrete. The philosophy of both sides are too principle based for either to ever possibly find a settled compromise. We of the conservative camp want absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with dear leader Obumer’s transformation of America into something of the lesser else and Comrade dear leader Obumer and socialist Company want absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with with our conservative reforms designed to bring the country back into compliance with the constitution of the founder intent, made know clearly by their various writing of the their time e.g. the federalist papers.

It is no small wonder that conservatives should expect personal attacks. In fact, we should accept that those on the socialist liberal left will attack the messenger rather than honestly debate the message solely on the constitutional merits of any given issue.

To the comment made about a hint of states’ rights: The Constitution does far more than hint that the states have rights superior to the federal government. In fact, if anyone dares to read the truth as it was written concerning states’ rights, President James Madison made this point very clear in his federalist papers numbers 41 and 45. Wherein, he makes it very plain that the states were to have more rights and powers than the federal government.

Centralized power is always a key structural component of any socialist government.

Michael H. Smith

March 6th, 2011
10:04 am

Federalist No. 45

The idea that the reach of the federal government would be restricted to a few enumerated powers is articulated by Madison in Federalist No. 45:

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._45

Was healthcare “specifically listed”(enumerated) or “defined” as the right of the federal government?

Left wing management

March 6th, 2011
10:48 am

MHS: The fearful question we must ask is what does dear leader plan to transform America into, since it is obvious he had a very poor view of the unique America we knew before he took office.

Nonsense. This president is arguably the most “apple pie” idealistic about America of any president in recent decades. To say he had a “poor view” of America is laughably false. As George Will – hardly a socialist – put it yesterday:

To the notion that Obama has a “Kenyan, anti-colonial” worldview, the sensible response is: If only. Obama’s natural habitat is as American as the nearest faculty club; he is a distillation of America’s academic mentality; he is as American as the other professor-president, Woodrow Wilson.

I guess if you’re the type who listens to George Will, this settles the argument, but if you’re the type who watches Glenn Beck, it’s all the more damning since from what I hear Wilson is his bogeyman. Whatever negative can be said of the Wilson-Obama style of American leadership – and I have plenty of problems with it – saying that it’s part of a socialist plot to bring it down from the inside is not one of them. That’s sheer delusion.

The philosophy of both sides are too principle based for either to ever possibly find a settled compromise.

Exactly. What we have here are the seeds of possible future civil wars. History is filled with examples of this.

Centralized power is always a key structural component of any socialist government.
But what if the centralized power is all held by the corporations and their puppets in government? Is that socialist? In my book it is, but something tells me that kind of socialism is a-okay for you. And that’s where we differ.

independent

March 6th, 2011
10:55 am

The ‘Fair Tax’ is another attempt for the high-net-worth (HNW) class to deceive those who are angry, skeptical, conspiratorial, etc., support a program that will solidify the position of the HNW class. Those who have not taken the kool-aid say that objective analysis shows a necessary tax rate of at least 36% just to recover the amount of revenue the Government needs today to function, and the much ballyhou’d ‘pay-back’ checks are a myth.

If you want to propose a reasonable approach to applying the principles of the ‘Fair Tax’, which more people could support but the HNW people will not: suggest implementation of a fair tax at 8% as a supplemental tax source. Add to the proposal that funds received thorugh that source will go into a lock box to fund SS, Med, and eliminate employment taxes. This proposal would be reasonable, could generate revenue from currently untapped sources, lower taxes for individuals and business, but will be rejected by the HNW class. Why?

AmVet

March 6th, 2011
10:56 am

This will infuriate the right-wing’s Uncle Sam haters here:

WASHINGTON — When the airline industry took a nose dive a decade ago, executives at global carriers scrambled to find a quick fix to avoid financial ruin.

What they came up with, according to federal prosecutors, was a massive price-fixing scheme among airlines that artificially inflated passenger and cargo fuel surcharges between 2000 and 2006 to make up for lost profits.

The airlines’ crimes cost U.S. consumers and businesses — mostly international passengers and cargo shippers — hundreds of millions of dollars, prosecutors say.

But the airlines caught by the Justice Department have paid a hefty price in the five years since the government’s widespread investigation became public.

To date, 19 executives have been charged with wrongdoing — four have gone to prison — and 21 airlines have coughed up more than $1.7 billion in fines in one of the largest criminal antitrust investigations in U.S. history.

Justice is served – great news for American consumers, bad news for the criminal coddling neo-cons…

Michael H. Smith

March 6th, 2011
11:01 am

Nonsense. This president is arguably the most “apple pie” idealistic about America of any president in recent decades.

HOOEY!

Nice quotes but I didn’t make any of them. Can you debate the ones that I actually made and not attempt to frame me into your own arguments?

Delusional? Thanks for the confirmation of personal attacks that poorly substitute constitutional debate of the issue’s merit.

AmVet

March 6th, 2011
11:10 am

Almost inevitably, whenever the parasitic, Georgia Republican pigs at the trough get the chance, they will exploit, extort or simply outright steal from the taxpayers.

Luckily for Gwinnett, Cobb county’s permanent role as the laughingstock of Georgia is secure…

Two Gwinnett County real estate developers made more than $1 million in a day by buying large tracts of land and immediately selling the property to the county’s school district, an Atlanta Journal-Constitution investigation has found.

In two other transactions uncovered by the AJC, a third developer cleared $840,000 and another made $340,000 selling land to the school district the same day they bought it.

At least two of the developers got the land under contract after the school district began looking at the specific property as a potential school site.

School officials insist they have done nothing wrong and describe themselves as victims of savvy real estate investors and a hot real estate market. The transactions, which totaled $23 million, took place between 2004 and 2008. Schools have been built on two of the sites; two remain raw land for now.

Some of the developers who benefited from the flipped properties, including David Bowen and David Jenkins, were, at the time, among the most prominent and politically connected developers in Gwinnett. Bowen and Jenkins also were involved in land deals with Gwinnett’s county government that became part of a grand jury investigation that felled the County Commission’s chairman and another commissioner.

Michael H. Smith

March 6th, 2011
11:11 am

This will infuriate the right-wing’s Uncle Sam haters here:

Oh another nice personal attack made on an assumption that those holding differing views on the right than your own 1) hate government 2) and don’t see further need of justice being served by eliminating all the subsidies the airlines receive, which is bad news for the American consumers.

Matti

March 6th, 2011
11:11 am

The word “hymnal” in the title of this column about taxes is appropriate when talking about people who claim to worship Christ when everything they say and do indicates that they worship MONEY and the ALMIGHTY FREE MARKET. In the PROFIT’s name they pray, Amen.

Left wing management

March 6th, 2011
11:13 am

MHS: “ice quotes but I didn’t make any of them. Can you debate the ones that I actually made and not attempt to frame me into your own arguments”

Excuse me? You certainly did say Obama had a “poor view” of the country he leads. I based my replies to two statements you made. Nothing made up about that. It’s right there in your post.

Delusional? Thanks for the confirmation of personal attacks that poorly substitute constitutional debate of the issue’s merit.

As I cautioned Linda above, we’re not debating place settings for our next tea time here. These are things people have furious disagreements over. Hey look at it this way, I agreed with you in what you said about compromise being almost impossible (”The philosophy of both sides are too principle based for either to ever possibly find a settled compromise”). So wasn’t completely disagreeing with you. I was just agreeing that the differences we’re seeing now in American public life are probably irresolvable and that’s a concern.

AmVet

March 6th, 2011
11:20 am

Oh another nice personal attack…

I know it is utterly hopeless, but perhaps other readers will actually grok the distinction.

Republicans (or any other group) are (fill in the blank)… is NOT a personal attack. (DUH!)

Michael H. Smith (or any other individual here) is (fill in the blank) …IS a personal attack. (DUH!)

Ninth grade grammar brought to you courtesy of AmVet…

Michael H. Smith

March 6th, 2011
11:23 am

You certainly did say Obama had a “poor view” of the country he leads. I based my replies to two statements you made. Nothing made up about that. It’s right there in your post.

Yes I certainly did and didn’t your dear leader say that America was no different or of any more importance than nations like Turkey or Greece? Name one other President that has gone on a world wide apology tour for everything America has or has not actually done?

Obama as American as “Apple Pie”? Now that would be a delusional statement. Ever “Apple Pie” President in my lifetime never considered America as a commonplace country among the world’s nations and none of them went around apologizing for America.

As I cautioned Linda above, we’re not debating place settings for our next tea time here.

I don’t give a hang about your cautions and you are not debating any place setting of issues on constitutional merits.

Michael H. Smith

March 6th, 2011
11:26 am

I know it is utterly hopeless, but perhaps other readers will actually grok the distinction.

Republicans (or any other group) are (fill in the blank)… is NOT a personal attack. (DUH!)

Michael H. Smith (or any other individual here) is (fill in the blank) …IS a personal attack. (DUH!)

Ninth grade grammar brought to you courtesy of AmVet…

Yet another personal attack brought to you by Am… yada yada yada

Hopeless indeed.

Michael H. Smith

March 6th, 2011
11:31 am

Federalist No. 45

The idea that the reach of the federal government would be restricted to a few enumerated powers is articulated by Madison in Federalist No. 45:

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._45

Was healthcare “specifically listed”(enumerated) or “defined” as the right of the federal government?

Let me hear your Constitutional answers to this question Am and Left Wing. Yes or No will be sufficient, unless of course you can find a “specifically listed”(enumerated) power given to the federal government. In such case I’d like to see it, not your opinions or statements.

AmVet

March 6th, 2011
11:51 am

“…yada yada yada…”

The best response this man can muster is gibberish?

And quit personally attacking everybody! (LOL.)

Michael H. Smith

March 6th, 2011
12:03 pm

AmVet

Just another personal attack, no constitutional answer to my question is the best you can do?

Left wing management

March 6th, 2011
12:05 pm

Was healthcare “specifically listed”(enumerated) or “defined” as the right of the federal government?

The rights of the federal government are evolving.

As in all of this nation’s founding documents, the overarching principle is that of a balance of powers (e.g. between federal and state government), not of one or the other having any claim to absolute supremacy. The closest the founding documents come to advocating any kind of absolute principle is in the principle of a balance of powers.

Michael H. Smith

March 6th, 2011
12:14 pm

Let’s get down to it, Kyle. If our political leaders such as they are intend to really do something about cutting costs, balancing budgets and ending spending through subsidies then they will have to genuinely and constitutionally reform healthcare: Medicare, Medicaid and the rest.

States actually have the constitutional authority over healthcare where the federal government does not. Which means the federal government should transition its’ various healthcare programs back to the states and regulate healthcare concerns only when it crosses state-lines. Until Medicare, Medicaid and the rest are redressed no real progress can be made in bringing government’s monetary house in order.

Michael H. Smith

March 6th, 2011
12:20 pm

Left wing management, that is an opinion offered to dodge a direct constitutional answer. The balance of powers are established in the Constitution. James Madison made that balance known in federalist number 45.

Federalist No. 45

The idea that the reach of the federal government would be restricted to a few enumerated powers is articulated by Madison in Federalist No. 45:

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._45

Once again the question:

Was healthcare “specifically listed”(enumerated) or “defined” as the right of the federal government?

Left wing management

March 6th, 2011
12:29 pm

MHS: “Yes I certainly did and didn’t your dear leader say that America was no different or of any more importance than nations like Turkey or Greece? Name one other President that has gone on a world wide apology tour for everything America has or has not actually done?”

Don’t forget – he’s your “dear leader”, too, just as much as he is mine. And contrary to what you may think, I’m not particularly enamored of the man at all. In fact, in your obsession I think it’s you who’s the more enamored of him between the two of us. My opinion of him is more or less what George Will said (one of the few things I agree with him about), which is that Obama is the perfect distillation of the American ‘academic’ tradition: a rather narrow set of ideas that can be boiled down more or less to: the tendency to be naively prostrate before the god of intellectual progress, being ever ready to put one’s trust in a cadre of experts for a solution to this or that problem, the belief that the cream of the crop always rises to the top of institutions, the belief that the American meritocracy – the infamous “best and brightest” who have gotten us into many a quagmire abroad with their group-think – always reflects true excellence, and on and on. It’s very clear that at a deep level the attitude Obama most steadfastly holds to is that of reverence towards this country’s deeper ideals (of equality and meritocracy). And that’s why – paradoxically – he’s probably the least able to actually introduce radical change in the country’s institutional structure at precisely the moment where that radical change is most desperately needed. This is what makes the charge of ‘radicalism’ leveled against him by a cynical, intellectually rotted opposition (Gingrich, De Souza) doubly grotesque. It’s not only false, it’s diametrically opposite to the truth.

By the way, this American Exceptionalism meme you’re rehearsing is frankly one of the most tiring and intellectually shallow that’s bubbled to the surface in recent years. Yes, Obama was naive to suggest that Greeks and other countries view themselves as “exceptional” too. He would have been better advised to put this conservative canard to bed by pointing out that America in fact has a dual exceptional nature: that of being the only nation founded on an ideal and yet the only one with the power to impose its own realpolitik on others in pursuit of its own narrow self-interest, which goes directly opposite of the ideals the country at the same time tries to uphold. Therein lies the true meaning of “American exceptionalism”: a radical ambiguity. But I realize I’m talking to a lot of people who’ve been taught to distrust ambiguity above all else.

Michael H. Smith

March 6th, 2011
12:37 pm

Obama is the President of the Untied Sates of American (for only two more years), he is not my “dear leader”, since I’m not enamored and I don’t buy into him as the North Koreans buy into their “dear leader” mm, mm, as being anything more than a socialist with a socialist agenda, not plot, to serve.

Michael H. Smith

March 6th, 2011
12:44 pm

Socialism:

b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and ["or"] controlled by the state.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism

Michael H. Smith

March 6th, 2011
12:50 pm

however, modern command societies have virtually all been organized in the name of socialism—that is, with the function of command officially administered on behalf of an ideology purported to serve the broad masses of the population.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/178493/economic-systems/61121/Centrally-planned-systems#ref843203

Michael H. Smith

March 6th, 2011
12:51 pm

command economy, economic system in which the means of production are publicly owned and economic activity is controlled by a central authority that assigns quantitative production goals and allots raw materials to productive enterprises.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/127708/command-economy

Left wing management

March 6th, 2011
12:55 pm

MHS: 12:37:

Like I said, he’s your leader, just like mine.

Michael H. Smith

March 6th, 2011
12:58 pm

Left wing management

March 6th, 2011
12:55 pm

Like I said, no he is not my “dear leader” mm, mm, mm. Two more years and he will no longer be an acting President of the United States.

And, my question remains constitutionally unanswered.

Left wing management

March 6th, 2011
1:00 pm

MHS: Re your last posts. I don’t know what purpose all the yammering about ‘command economies’ really serves. It only further demonstrates your ignorance. There’s no such thing as a completely free market system, but certainly the UK and US economies are very close, certainly closer than the more coordinated economies of continental Europe.

That said, it’s true that we now have a more socialistic economy than we did a decade ago, and there’s a simple reason for that: we have a socialized financial system, but harsh capitalist conditions for everyone else, as Michael Lewis has said.

Left wing management

March 6th, 2011
1:02 pm

I think I’m going to make it a habit of avoiding extended discussion with people who intersperse their posts with “mm, mm, mm”.

Good day.

Michael H. Smith

March 6th, 2011
1:10 pm

That said, it’s true that we now have a more socialistic economy than we did a decade ago, and there’s a simple reason for that: we have a socialized financial system, but harsh capitalist conditions for everyone else, as Michael Lewis has said.

As Royal Marshall would’ve said: Just Damn!

At least you have the guts to admit to the socialist agenda and that we have moved away from the regulated capitalism as prescribe under the Constitution that gave the federal government a very limited ability to regulate the economy.

However, what you fail to see or acknowledge and certainly don’t accept is what constitutional conservatives object to, which is the circumventing to replace the regulated capitalism as prescribe under the Constitution that gave the federal government a very limited ability to regulate the economy with socialism in progressive degrees without amending the Constitution first.

Common Sense

March 6th, 2011
1:13 pm

Most of those republicans referred to as pigs at the trough were democrats first.

Deal has been a Republican for less time than many of you have been driving.

Georgia had a chose of an old democrat, an old democrat who turned republican, and a libertarian.

And when you voted in the last election more than 90% of you proved the way you vote is the biggest problem Georgia faces.

Michael H. Smith

March 6th, 2011
1:19 pm

Left wing management

Do whatever you like with your habit of avoidance, day and time.

BTW, let it be known that this “mm, mm, mm” business was a creation of the left, as part of a song praising Obama that was being taught to school children. Something one would expect to happen in North Korean where propaganda to indoctrinate at the earliest age is the acceptable status quo of that communist society.

Left wing management

March 6th, 2011
1:25 pm

However, what you fail to see or acknowledge and certainly don’t accept is what constitutional conservatives object to, which is the circumventing to replace the regulated capitalism as prescribe under the Constitution that gave the federal government a very limited ability to regulate the economy with socialism in progressive degrees without amending the Constitution first.

Ah! That’s just it. There is such a thing as amendments.

There are, you know?

And, my question remains constitutionally unanswered.

See above. It’s not that I’m refusing to address your question, it’s that we disagree on the premise, so we really have no basis for discussion.

The restricted list of rights you cite are subject to later amendments which revise the relationship between federal and state authority.

I Report (-: You Whine )-: Thee Magnificent!!! mmm, mmmm, mmmmm! Just sayin...

March 6th, 2011
1:28 pm

ROMNEY TO NH: WE NEED A NEW PRESIDENT

As long as it ain’t Romney, I tend to agree.

Linda

March 6th, 2011
1:34 pm

Left@11:49 PM, During the Bush adm., $4.4 T was added to the natl. debt, an average of $544 B per yr.
During the O adm., $4.2 T has been added to the natl. debt., an average of $1.7 per yr. That’s 3 & 1/4 times the overspending during Bush!
There’s no comparison between the 2 adms. O is not just continuing a pattern pursued by the previous adm. O makes Bush look like Scrooge.
The prescription drug program liability is not even included in the natl. debt. The Dems. have had 5 yrs. to change or delete the problem.
With the debt ceiling looming & threats of the fed. govt. being shut down, O used his State of the Union Speech demanding more spending, ignored his own debt commission & produced a budget that adds another $1.645 T to the deficit this year, $7.2 T over 10 yrs.!
These high gas prices are a part of his energy plan & his adm. is to blame for a great extent of them.
He’s a smart man, knows what he wants, how to achieve his goals & he’s getting close.
With the debt ceiling

Michael H. Smith

March 6th, 2011
1:36 pm

See above. It’s not that I’m refusing to address your question, it’s that we disagree on the premise, so we really have no basis for discussion.

The restricted list of rights you cite are subject to later amendments which revise the relationship between federal and state authority.

Yes you are refusing to answer the question and no it is not that we disagree as much as it is that you disagree with the Constitution and the listed rights it gave to the federal government. Name the amendments that give the federal government unrestricted rights or the specific right to act on healthcare?

To my knowledge there are no such amendments and there is no enumerate right under the commerce clause of Article 1 section 8 that gives the federal government authority to do anything with healthcare so long as the commerce thereof does not cross a state-line.

jconservative

March 6th, 2011
1:45 pm

Linda – “My husband & I have lived thru 12 presidents. We have NEVER seen anything like what is going on today, the intentional attempt to bring down the USA with debt, unemployment, entitlements & inflation.”

Congratulations on the long successful marriage.

I will speculate that one of the reasons for your successful marriage is that you slept through the four presidents immediately preceding the current president.

Had you been awake you would have really been hollering just as loud as I was. Because what those four, Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Bush, did was “…the intentional attempt to bring down the USA with debt, unemployment & entitlements…”.

Notice I left out inflation. “We don’t got none”, as my grandson says.
But hang on, we will have some in a couple of years, unless deflation hits first.

Lets look at those presidents one at a time.

Reagan invented the concept of cutting Federal revenue and increasing Federal spending in the same budget. He signed 8 deficit budgets in a row and created the first multi-trillion dollar national debt. And he expanded the entitlements of Medicare/Medicaid far beyond the original intent of both. A man of vision.

Bush 41 simply continued the Reagan policies of cutting revenue and increasing spending. Although he did go through a period of sanity with a tax increase in 1990 in an attempt to increase revenue and reduce the deficit. But the electorate does not like tax increases and he was sent to the employment lines after one term. Pity.

Clinton more of the same. But he did manage to sign 3 balanced budgets presented to him by a Republican Congress. Give that Congress credit for doing it and give Clinton credit for signing them. Historical trivia – name the last 4 US presidents to sign a balanced budget? Answer- Clinton, Clinton, Clinton & Truman.

Scary, ain’t it?

Bush 43. Interesting study, this administration. Came in with 3 straight balanced budgets signed by his predecessor. Came in saying he was a conservative. And immediately sent all taxpayers a $300 check from the “surplus”. The “Surplus”! This was step one of several that ended up with the National Debt being doubled by this president. Oh, and entitlements? Created the first new entitlement in over 30 years with his Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003. Now seniors get taxpayers income tax money to help them pay for their drugs. Socialism, as the Tea Party is fond of saying. Not cheap either, $4 trillion dollars in the first 30 years. But FREE for everyone on Medicare/Medicaid. Taxpayers just love Free Stuff!

Oh, do I need to mention President Bush and Ted Kennedy getting together for “No Kids Left Behind”? No? Good! Makes my stomach queasy to even think about it.

So Linda, glad you are awake and glad you have joined the few of us who are really, what is a nice word?, “disappointed” in the way the Last Five presidents have handled spending.

And yeah, you are correct about the present one. Five peas in the same pod, can’t tell them apart. The “D” or “R” after their names haven’t made any difference when it comes to spending

The last 5 presidents apparently decided that the best way to handle federal spending was to just ignore it. And so they did just that.
Out of sight, out of mind!

But they cut taxes! All five of them!

And for the last 30 years that is all that has mattered.

Have we changed? Will we change? Or will taxes remain more important than spending.

Michael H. Smith

March 6th, 2011
1:46 pm

I Report (-: You Whine )-: Thee Magnificent!!! mmm, mmmm, mmmmm! Just sayin…

At least Romney acted Constitutionally with his RomneyCare law whereas Obama didn’t act Constitutionally with his ObamaCare Law.

Left wing management

March 6th, 2011
1:49 pm

Linda: 1:34:

We need more spending. Only that has a chance to boost lagging demand. More than that though we need spending to make this nation more competitive and pave the way for the innovative markets of the future.

MHS: The amendments during and in the aftermath of the Civil War in particular revised – i.e. further clarified – the relationship of powers between Federal and state government.

Michael H. Smith

March 6th, 2011
1:55 pm

will taxes remain more important than spending.

Not for me and they never have been. The problem is that the majority in this country doesn’t like spending cuts and the politicians know it. How many get elected or re-elected by campaigning solely on the spending cuts they’ve made?

Now we know why neither major political party is willing to deal the Mothers’ of all Subsidies, Medicare and Medicaid. Which again the federal government exceeded its’ Constitutional authorities enact without amending the Constitution.

Yeah, socialist liberals the same unconstitutionality goes for the BushDrugCare law.

Michael H. Smith

March 6th, 2011
2:01 pm

The amendments during and in the aftermath of the Civil War in particular revised – i.e. further clarified – the relationship of powers between Federal and state government.

No way, LWM, amendments 13 and 14 mostly clarified only slavery and citizenship and have NOTHING to do with a federal power or right to act on healthcare.

You might as well concede to the constitutional reality that a great deal of the rights the federal government uses today were unconstitutionally taken from the states.

Linda

March 6th, 2011
2:08 pm

Left@12:05, Have you ever gotten lost trying to get from point A to point B? Have you ever noticed your turkey was still frozen & undercooked? Have you ever had a home improvement project collapse in front of you?
Your problem might have been that you did not follow the instructions, that you thought that you did not need them, that you thought that you could just wing it.
No wonder liberals are such lost souls. They make up the rules as they go. What they don’t evolve FROM evolves around them. Monkeys.

Michael H. Smith

March 6th, 2011
2:22 pm

New Words & Slang from The Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Search results for ‘Obamacare’ (1 of 1)

Obamacare (noun) : health care proposed by President Barack Obama

http://nws.merriam-webster.com/opendictionary/newword_search.php

OBAMACARE is officially a new word.

AmVet

March 6th, 2011
2:57 pm

Just another personal attack, no constitutional answer to my question is the best you can do?

Constitutional answer?

What question?

Are you going Sybil?

Step away from the blog.

You’re entire weekend (and life?) revolves around this thing.

Very sad…

Linda

March 6th, 2011
3:05 pm

jconservative@1:45, If you think we have not been experiencing inflation for months, perhaps you should go to the grocery store or fill up your car. Check the commodities market, why don’t you.

I don’t give much credibility to budgets. The Dems. did not even have one last year. Budgets are presented, preliminary, debated, etc. What matters is the debt.

According to the Treasury Dept., Reagan added $1.692 T to the natl. debt, Bush I added $1.456 T, Clinton added $1.609, Bush II added $4.4 T & Obama added $3.5 T (in 2 yrs.).

Clinton might have had balanced budgets, but debt was added during his adm. In his autobiography, published in ‘04, he wrote, “One of the most effective things we did was to reform the regulations governing financial institutions under the 1977 CRA. The law REQUIRED federally insured lenders to make an extra effort to give loans to low- & modest-income borrowers, but before 1993 it never had much impact. After the change we made, between 1993 & 2000, banks would offer more than $800 billion in home mortgages, small-business & cd loans to borrowers covered by the law, a staggering figure that amounted to well over 90 percent of all the loans made in the twenty-three years of the CRA.” The cause of the economic crisis was the relaxation of underwriting standards that began under Clinton in the name of affordable housing/social justice/socialism that created the subprime market that will cost the US trillions.

Spending almost a trillion dollars less than 3 wks. after being inaugurated, on the largest spending bill in the history of the world, unread, more than our entire debt to China, about the same as our entire cost of being at war for 13 yrs. total, differentiated one pea from the rest in the pod.

O’s new budget raises taxes, but he proposes to spend every dime & still add another $7.2 T to the debt. If we were taxed 100%, there would still be a deficit.

2 cents

March 6th, 2011
3:38 pm

increase taxes; obamacare; and NO ENERGY policy in sight….. we (USA) still have zero energy policy after 40 years.

we the ppl; have to dictate what we want cause what they are doing in DC aint helping $^&@

Linda

March 6th, 2011
4:05 pm

Left@1:49, We need more spending? With what?
The DC bunch has been spending for 3 yrs. How many more yrs. will it take to see that it isn’t working? It’s NEVER worked. It didn’t work under FDR, in Japan or Europe.
“…has a chance?” The fed. govt. isn’t a casino (even tho it’s beginning to smell like the stables at the track). We can’t afford any more gambles.
Demand can’t be artificially created/boosted. The govt. has dissolved it in salt.
“…pave the way?” With IOUs?
Say you don’t want to print more money out of thin air, taxation without legislation, taxes on every citizen including the poor & the elderly, those on fixed incomes. Think that’ll get you votes?
Liberals should never be allowed to be bankers, accountants, financial planners, econ or history teachers or to have checking accounts, credit cards or children.

Michael H. Smith

March 6th, 2011
4:43 pm

AmVet

You know the question and you will not answer sensibly because the answer is the federal government has no right or power granted to it by the Constitution to act on healthcare. Nowhere enumerated in the commerce clause or anywhere else in the Constitution by an amendment.

And Am you are certainly not the one to talk about the time anybody spends is on this blog. What is truly sad is your inability to discuss anything without your usual all too boring personal attacks via innuendo, inferences and insisting that people you disagree and that you can’t reasonably debate with on the issues are childish juveniles of lesser intelligence than you.

seabeau

March 6th, 2011
5:14 pm

Cut federal spending 5% in every dept.for each of the next 5 years. Stop all foreign aid. Stop payments to the UN until it gives us a better accounting of the spending.

Jason (Duluth)

March 6th, 2011
5:21 pm

May I add a small story about drilling for our OWN oil? Having worked up near Barrow for about three months a couple of years ago, I would invite anyone who is deeply depressed about ruining the habitats of animals and destroying the environment to visit the areas up there. There are more elk, caribou, etc. now than ever! Don’t take my word for it, contact the Alaska Wildlife Commission and see what they say. Traveling up near there, trees obliterate the pipeline in most areas and cover the pumping stations.
The same could be true for ANWR drilling, too. BUT: Because our esteemed James Earl Carter created the Energy Department circa 1974, we don’t need any more oil from our own lands, his Energy Department has seen to it that the billions upon billions and thousands of employees have figured out a way for us to be energy independent; that’s what their directive was.
Of course, I jest. Why have we spent billions, hired thousands of people to develop a program for energy independence and have – thus far – come up with nada?
Electric cars? Hybrids? You gotta be kidding me! Men on the moon, yes. Developing energy resources…well, it just ain’t happened.
Let’s see: from 1974 to 2011…that’s about 37 or so years. Isn’t that enough time to figure out the problem, U. S. Department of Energy? OH, I see! If we give you just 37 MORE years, you may have the answer?
Finally, to those who storm the bastions when they read of someone daring to propose that we continue drilling for our oil on our own lands (and waters) and with our own personnel, tell me what you would do to solve the problem. Eh, did you say solar panels? Windmills? Steam turbines? Battery power?, ad nauseum?
I agree with those who have mentioned the above. Now if you lefties will tell me just how to properly attach solar panels and windmills on my automobile, I’ll be one happy camper! (Don’t suggest Elmer’s Glue or welding…I’ve tried those already.)

Linda

March 6th, 2011
5:44 pm

Jason@5:21, I am posting 2 sites for you to scan over, one per comment per Kyle’s rules. Seems the US has more oil than Saudi, per the Dept. of Energy. Here’s one:

http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/oilgas/eor/index.html

Linda

March 6th, 2011
5:45 pm

Jason, Here’s the other one:

http://www.fossil.energy.gov/news/techlines/2006/06015-Oil_Recovery_Assessments_Released.html

Michael H. Smith

March 6th, 2011
6:01 pm

Just curious Linda, what happens if we raise the debt ceiling as so many want but when the bonds are issued for sale all the countries like China decide to stop buying our debt? What would that mean, what would be the results of such and event?

Linda

March 6th, 2011
6:35 pm

Michael@6:01, I understand China has been selling off our debt. When Chu flew to the US on a commercial jet, I got the message. Don’t think O did.
China owns more of our debt than Americans. That says a lot. China has expressed concern that we are devaluing the dollar. Duh! Europe is calling on the dollar as the world currency to be replaced. So what does DC do? Crank up the printing presses & print money out of thin air—again, what Bernanke swore under oath he wouldn’t do, right before he did it.
The Reps. are trying to audit his little corner & Ron Paul is doing cartwheels.
They place one of each denominations in a bucket & the receptionist (Inez) over at the mint gets to draw. That’s how they decide what size bill to print. Hope this time it’s one dollar bills & they have to cut down all the trees, including the cherries, in DC for the paper. That will teach them a thing or two.

I Report (-: You Whine )-: Thee Magnificent!!! mmm, mmmm, mmmmm! Just sayin...

March 6th, 2011
6:37 pm

It’s very early, but the contenders most-often mentioned have obvious liabilities.

Mitt Romney was beaten last time out by John McCain, a deeply flawed candidate, and as governor, implemented an Obamacare precursor — the disastrous Massachusetts health plan.

MHS- This election we have to be sure that we have the best candidate, not some maverick that the NY Times finds acceptable.

It ain’t Romney.

Linda

March 6th, 2011
7:00 pm

Whine@6:37, I ain’t votin’ for NO body without a campaign slogan that reads: Drill, Baby, Drill!
Actually, Baby could be replaced with Maam, Mista, Poppa, Auntie or even Whine. It’s the double drill that’s crucial.
And I ain’t votin’ for NO body recommended by the NYT.

Jason (Duluth)

March 6th, 2011
7:25 pm

@Linda (5.44p & 5.45p):

Yes, I’m very familiar with these DOE reports (one is now 4 years old!). My question? As they said in Alabama when Big Jim Folsom was running again for Governor years after having served as such, the people said, “Yeah, Big Jim…you did a lot for us (Alabama) but our question is, What have you done for us lately?. I stand by my comments about the useless DOE and it’s wasted billions on charts, graphs, blah, blah, etc., but still no ENERGY PROGRAM. Oh, well maybe I was on a moon mission when they began searching for crude oil with CO2 gas. Wow, what a discovery!

Linda

March 6th, 2011
8:11 pm

Jason@7:25, I have posted these websites several times. You are the only person that was familiar with them. Most Americans are unaware that we are the only developed nation in the world that had a 25 year moratorium on using our own natural resources, that expired in ‘08, & is still under a political moratorium thru the O adm. that has also added another moratorium in the Gulf.

There has always been a US energy policy. We must save the planet. We must buy our oil from other planets: 1. Canada, 2. Mexico, 3. Saudi, etc. We must fund both sides of the war in Afghan. We must spend 20% of our defense budget protecting the Persian Gulf. We must give foreign aid to dictators in exchange for oil. We must lay off folks in the Gulf & add them to the 2 yrs. of unemployment entitlements to be fair. We must cancel leases in Wyoming, Utah & Montana & prevent leases by Virginia to be fair. We must finance Brazil to drill oil for China to be nice. We must watch Russia drill 50 miles off our shores with Cuba. We must use the EPA to stop global warming because the Senate is irrelevant. We must buy $700 B of oil from our friends/enemies for social justice & because we don’t need the money. We must pay $4 per gallon at the pump so that “green jobs” can be created.

What do you not understand?

AmVet

March 6th, 2011
8:56 pm

You know the question and you will not answer sensibly because the answer is the federal government has no right or power granted to it by the Constitution to act on healthcare.

What is Sam Hill’s name are YOU talking about??

I gather you were having a discussion with someone else on that matter?

Do you think I read your previous posts?? Why would you think that? Are you so full of yourself, that you think that other people here hang on your every word and with bated breath await your every opinion?

What *are* you thinking?

Until you made that irrational “observation” about my non-personal personal attacks – out of the blue – I had no intention whatsoever of engaging you. Now or in the future.

You certainly did not address the Gwinnett developers I referenced, nor the disgraced, jailed airline executives I provided that information on.

You seem obsessed with this matter by making up stories about “the left” personally attacking other bloggers here, and then acting like they are ignoring you.

OK, whatever floats your dinghy, Mike. But you can be a very strange and silly man. (Is that personal enough for you now?)

2 cents

March 6th, 2011
10:24 pm

@Linda,

you are correct that we are funding both sides of the war in Afgan. It has turned into nothing more than a drug war now. We are basically going after the poppie growers and smugglers that are left. If we dont get out of this crusade soon, it will cost us our freedom.

an easy step in energy policy would be bring in the auto makers and have them produce more diesel powered cars until the hybrid/battery tech improves.

i know these items are way off topic but i think responsible newspaper should start writing on these topics

saywhat?

March 6th, 2011
10:55 pm

Don’t ask for sacrifice from those who can best accommodate it! Don’t punish success! Don’t tax the rich! Haven’t the wealthy suffered enough?

Justsayno !!!!!!

March 6th, 2011
11:13 pm

We don’t have a tax problem. We have a spending problem. We have got to get the spending under contol or it won ‘t matter how much we tax ourselves.

Michael H. Smith

March 7th, 2011
2:07 am

AmVet

March 6th, 2011
8:56 pm

You can play dumb or silly as you wish. You know the question I asked and if you forgot, all you have to do is read it.

~

Federalist No. 45

The idea that the reach of the federal government would be restricted to a few enumerated powers is articulated by Madison in Federalist No. 45:

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._45

Was healthcare “specifically listed”(enumerated) or “defined” as the right of the federal government?

Let me hear your Constitutional answers to this question Am and Left Wing. Yes or No will be sufficient, unless of course you can find a “specifically listed”(enumerated) power given to the federal government. In such case I’d like to see it, not your opinions or statements.

Don’t bother giving me another lame reply in the form of another doltish personal attack.

Michael H. Smith

March 7th, 2011
2:35 am

I Report (-: You Whine )-: Thee Magnificent!!! mmm, mmmm, mmmmm! Just sayin…

March 6th, 2011
6:37 pm

We do agree on not choosing deeply flawed candidates. However, I can tell you that so far the usual people who are being floated might be ideal to win the GOP primary but none of them can win the general election. Look for a fresh face with executive and real world business experience, the usual people who continue to surface time after time have too much baggage, their negatives are too high or they are too fringe to win popular support from Independent voters. Only one name that I can think of who might choose to run or is tentatively willing to at the moment to make a run for the Presidency comes to mind, the others are not willing and have said as much, so I’d let them be.

My point about Romney was that his attempt at healthcare was constitutionally correct where Obamacare is not, because that plan was done at the state level and not the federal. The Constitution gave all rights to the states to do anything that was not specially listed (enumerated) as a power or right of the Federal Government. We definitely want our candidate to understand and respect Federalism, which the potential candidate I have in mind does, though, he is not Romney or any one of the usual people.

Michael H. Smith

March 7th, 2011
2:47 am

Linda

March 6th, 2011
6:35 pm

All it will take is one failed treasury auction and everything will come down like the proverbial house of cards that it is, should it ever happen. If people think shutting down government is the horror of all unthinkable horrors, perhaps it is just as well they remain clueless to reality. Either we can make the choices to get our fiscal house in order or nations like China will make them for us, with the potential of the worst financial collapse the world has ever witnessed.

2 Cents

March 7th, 2011
9:03 am

The big wigs in the Republican party are deathly scared of a Ron Pual presidency; think what would happen if Ron Paul and Allen West won the P and VP spots. We all know the both parties line their own pockets when they get to DC. Except for those few persons that really know how important our Constitution is.

JB

March 7th, 2011
9:15 am

With close to half the population depending on the Feds for their living, Tax reform, and fair taxation will never happen. If fact, Dems want the productive group to pay more. It’s a plantation mentality. It really is. Why should someone making 500,000.00 only have to pay 150,000 in federal taxes. That is really their thinking. The Dems would really like about 250,000, about half. Their thinking is why should so many do without and so may have so much. Ask any LEGAL immigrate who has come here the last 10 years and started a business how they feel….and why they came here….Not to waddle out to the mailbox once a month for a Government check….They came her for freedom and to make $$$$$$…..and to keep it.

Linda

March 7th, 2011
10:23 am

2 cents@10:24PM, You mention our freedom & then mention bringing in the auto makers & having them produce a certain product. We can’t have freedom & have the govt. dictating to private companies what products to produce. The govt. is already dictating to the auto makers how to design their products, which is beyond the scope of the constitution.

Linda

March 7th, 2011
10:31 am

Michael@2:47, I think we have 2 choices: let the govt. shut down until the true conservatives in DC can convince the Democrats/progressives/socialists to cut spending AND the size of the fed. govt. OR let the fed. govt. shut down itself by default on debt we cannot afford to pay. Continuing to spend is not an option. Of the two above, the latter is by far, the worst.

Linda

March 7th, 2011
11:26 am

Regardless of whether taxpayers make $50,000 or $500,000 per year, how many months should they work for the govt. to pay their taxes, based on these tax brackets & the months required to pay them:
30% 3.6 mts.
40% 4.8 mts.
50% 6 mts.
60% 7.2 mts.
70% 8.4 mts.
80% 9.6 mts.
90% 10.8 mts.
100% 12 mts.
At a 30% tax bracket, tax payers are sorta free. At a 100% tax bracket, they are slaves. When do tax payers become servants?
Should all taxpayers work the same number of mts. to pay their taxes?

Atlanta, Washington singing from same hymnal on tax reform

149 comments Add your comment

About Kyle Wingfield

Search this blog

Recent Posts

Archives

More from the AJC

Search by blog topic

Blogroll

Guidelines for this blog

My special series on MARTA

All AJC blogs »

Tell us what you think about the site

Subscribe »

Customer Care »

AJC Services

Sections

Other Editions

Guides

Affiliates

Advertising

AJC Sites

Special Reports

Blogs

Opinion

Blogs

Topics

Features

Blogs

Topics

Features

Topics

Features

Features

Blogs

Topics

Features

Atlanta, Washington singing from same hymnal on tax reform

149 comments Add your comment

About Kyle Wingfield

Search this blog

Recent Posts

Archives

More from the AJC

Search by blog topic

Blogroll

Guidelines for this blog

My special series on MARTA

All AJC blogs »

Tell us what you think about the site

Subscribe »

Customer Care »

AJC Services

Sections

Other Editions

Guides

Affiliates

Advertising

AJC Sites