How Much More In Taxes Do Liberal Want Me To Pay?

[red states rule]

If you feel I am an unreliable source, based on this thread I understand.
I stated 500,000 Americans are starving to death with no source, claiming the media won't cover it.
I stated the results of a secret agent who did a study on the homeless, and can't reveal his name.
I took off with MtnBiker's comment because I'm fascinated by that stuff, but stated I think it's unwise to talk about it over the Internet which I firmly believe.
So you have your right to think parts of this thread are fabricated, but I feel my justifications I gave are totally legitimate.
For the first two, you can ask those in the know, find out for yourself, or just apply reasoning. For the last one, it's just unwise to talk about it in public without extreme precision.
But if you have anything else you'd like me to back up, I'd be pleased to.

Did you hear the one where Pres Bush and Karl Rove are using evil scientists to unleash man eating cockroachs on areas populated by Dems

They intend to kill as many Dems before the next election, and blame it on terrorists

You have been watching to many Oliver Stone movies

 

[pegwinn]

I have a wife and not one but two daughters. Elaborate on the mind control thing. I could use the assist.

 

[red states rule]

Getting back on topic. I am still waiting for a liberal to tell me how much more in taxes do they want me to pay?

 

[pegwinn]

Oh are we back on topic? Kewell. I am for the fair tax.

1. It's consumption based, which means that if you don't want to pay any taxes, buy it used and don't eat.

2. It takes into account the necessities of life, called a prebate, which is beneficial to the truly poor without giving em a free ride.

3. It means that all hands all feet and every swingin Richard pays. Rich and poor, legal, illegal, whatever. I also like the idea of tourists from Germany helping to fund social security.

4. It removes the single biggest power from congress. The power to individually reward and punish via taxation.

Because of number four, I don't think we'll ever see it. But it is fun to discuss.

 

[red states rule]

Oh are we back on topic? Kewell. I am for the fair tax.

1. It's consumption based, which means that if you don't want to pay any taxes, buy it used and don't eat.

2. It takes into account the necessities of life, called a prebate, which is beneficial to the truly poor without giving em a free ride.

3. It means that all hands all feet and every swingin Richard pays. Rich and poor, legal, illegal, whatever. I also like the idea of tourists from Germany helping to fund social security.

4. It removes the single biggest power from congress. The power to individually reward and punish via taxation.

Because of number four, I don't think we'll ever see it. But it is fun to discuss.

The fair tax WITH a line item veto would solve the problem

 

[pegwinn]

The fair tax WITH a line item veto would solve the problem

I agree but the USSC has ruled a line item veto unconstitutional. I would rather see that implemented than any other legislation (includeing the fair tax) right now.

 

[red states rule]

I agree but the USSC has ruled a line item veto unconstitutional. I would rather see that implemented than any other legislation (includeing the fair tax) right now.

We have 2 new Judges on the Court, and it should pass muster

 

[pegwinn]

We have 2 new Judges on the Court, and it should pass muster

I don't believe it. In order to do it a bill has to wend it's way thru congress all over again. The president won't sign it without assurances. The USSC will not give assurances. Ergo, it won't happen.

The other option is for someone with standing to challenge the previous ruling. I don't think that'll happen either.

ON this fine Independence Day it is fitting that we are observing just how low and petty our .gov has become eh?

 

[red states rule]

I don't believe it. In order to do it a bill has to wend it's way thru congress all over again. The president won't sign it without assurances. The USSC will not give assurances. Ergo, it won't happen.

The other option is for someone with standing to challenge the previous ruling. I don't think that'll happen either.

ON this fine Independence Day it is fitting that we are observing just how low and petty our .gov has become eh?

I think the Congress is going to pass the line item veto. They know the folks are fed up with the spending

In PA, the voters tossed out 14 incumbents so the politicans know it can be done

I do believe it will pass Congress and the USSC

 

[pegwinn]

I think the Congress is going to pass the line item veto. They know the folks are fed up with the spending

In PA, the voters tossed out 14 incumbents so the politicans know it can be done

I do believe it will pass Congress and the USSC

I don't mean to be rude, but unless I am mistaken, there is no bill in congress currently providing for it. IF you have the bill number I would appreciate it.

What happens in PA stays in PA. Look at MASS..........

 

[Annie]

I don't mean to be rude, but unless I am mistaken, there is no bill in congress currently providing for it. IF you have the bill number I would appreciate it.

What happens in PA stays in PA. Look at MASS..........

I found this:

http://www.house.gov/ryan/press_releases/2006pressreleases/61406LIVapproved.htm

 

[pegwinn]

I found this:

http://www.house.gov/ryan/press_releases/2006pressreleases/61406LIVapproved.htm

Thanks. I read it over and it isn't a real veto in anything but name only. At least it is a start.

But it troubles me that Congress can veto (via vote) his veto of a line item.

It troubles me that it is only to be in effect for six years.

 

[Annie]

Thanks. I read it over and it isn't a real veto in anything but name only. At least it is a start.

But it troubles me that Congress can veto (via vote) his veto of a line item.

It troubles me that it is only to be in effect for six years.

My guess is they are trying to find something that precludes the SCOTUS from declaring it unconstititutional, though I can't say that I'm seeing how it does.

I think the line item veto would take an amendment, otherwise the Congress is giving the executive at least partial legislative powers.

 

[Mr. P]

My guess is they are trying to find something that precludes the SCOTUS from declaring it unconstititutional, though I can't say that I'm seeing how it does.

I think the line item veto would take an amendment, otherwise the Congress is giving the executive at least partial legislative powers.

That's it. It will never happen without an amendment, it is clearly unconstitutional. Damn another amendment...errrrrrr

 

[pegwinn]

Nonsense. He isn't being granted legislative anything. And it isn't unconstitutional.

 

[MissileMan]

But it troubles me that Congress can veto (via vote) his veto of a line item.

I don't see that as any different than an override of a veto of an entire bill...2/3rds majority to make it happen.

 

[Mr. P]

Nonsense. He isn't being granted legislative anything. And it isn't unconstitutional.

It is ,Peg. I'll get the link for ya..Soon.

 

[Annie]

Nonsense. He isn't being granted legislative anything. And it isn't unconstitutional.

Clinton v. New York 1998

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=97-1374

 

[catatonic]

Did you hear the one where Pres Bush and Karl Rove are using evil scientists to unleash man eating cockroachs on areas populated by Dems

They intend to kill as many Dems before the next election, and blame it on terrorists

You have been watching to many Oliver Stone movies

Look! After Katrina they set out the budget for relief. They slated every single heavy Democrat area in Louisiana for no funding, so they would just die out, so they could win the next election. It's a fact... they just let tons and tons of people starve.

I've never seen an Oliver Stone movie, but I see that you're ignorant.

 

[pegwinn]

Clinton v. New York 1998

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=97-1374

I knew about the USSC ruling. Didn't remember that it came from NYC. Thanks Kath.