What would you ask any Senator if you could question them face to face?

[Bern80]

I would ask them why the stimulus bill does not more directly address the immediate needs of the economy and has so much relatively less immeditaely important spending in it?

 

[michiganFats]

i haven't found it, i want to know, don't you?

article 1, section 8, clause 1 gives congress the authority to levy a tax, it was passed during the civil war to pay for the war and ratified by the sixteenth amendment.

wtf??????

 

[RodISHI]

I would ask them why the stimulus bill does not more directly address the immediate needs of the economy and has so much relatively less immeditaely important spending in it?

What would be your direct suggestions in order to cover immediate needs?

I mean if we can direct these guys in the right direction it helps. We need to be specific so they can be specific when they go into their meetings.

How?

Why?

What will/can it accomplish?

 

[Peejay]

i haven't found it, i want to know, don't you?

article 1, section 8, clause 1 gives congress the authority to levy a tax, it was passed during the civil war to pay for the war and ratified by the sixteenth amendment.

wtf??????

We're still paying for the civil war. Interesting.

 

[Jon]

article 1, section 8, clause 1 gives congress the authority to levy a tax, it was passed during the civil war to pay for the war and ratified by the sixteenth amendment.

wtf??????

We're still paying for the civil war. Interesting.

No. The tax laws have changed substantially since then, and they even disappeared for a few years in the late 1890's/early 1900's. They were made permanent in 1913.

 

[michiganFats]

jsanders, I may have misunderstood what you were saying. Did you mean to say that Article I, Section 8, clause 1 was passed in order to pay for the Civil War?

 

[oreo]

I would ask them, when they planned on filing bankrupsty--& dissolving the Federal government.

 

[Jon]

jsanders, I may have misunderstood what you were saying. Did you mean to say that Article I, Section 8, clause 1 was passed in order to pay for the Civil War?

Yes, I did. The cost of the war was devastating. Congress passed a law giving them the power to levy taxes to provide defense and warfare for the country. It was the first income tax levied in our country.

 

[Terry]

I haven't found it, I want to know, don't you?

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 gives Congress the authority to levy a tax, it was passed during the Civil War to pay for the war and ratified by the Sixteenth Amendment.

And the Internal Revenue Code was passed in 1939 and revised in 1986, and it is a statement of federal law.

Yeah I read all about that, and then this: IRS: The Real Facts

I think the American people deserves some clarification!

 

[michiganFats]

jsanders, I may have misunderstood what you were saying. Did you mean to say that Article I, Section 8, clause 1 was passed in order to pay for the Civil War?

Yes, I did. The cost of the war was devastating. Congress passed a law giving them the power to levy taxes to provide defense and warfare for the country. It was the first income tax levied in our country.

That's one hell of a case of foresight.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I wouldn't ask either of them anything. I would explain Austrian-economics to both of them, and I'd commend Senator Voinovich for retiring in 2010 and recommend to Senator Brown that he resign.

 

[Jon]

I haven't found it, I want to know, don't you?

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 gives Congress the authority to levy a tax, it was passed during the Civil War to pay for the war and ratified by the Sixteenth Amendment.

And the Internal Revenue Code was passed in 1939 and revised in 1986, and it is a statement of federal law.

Yeah I read all about that, and then this: IRS: The Real Facts

I think the American people deserves some clarification!

Here, this explains it better:

Income Tax Page

Basically, the U.S. Code requires you to pay taxes.

As for the article you linked, its author is a kook. I dare him to try not to pay taxes and pull that shit in court. He will be eaten alive.

 

[Againsheila]

Senator's Murray and Cantwell,

How come when I wrote you about Alberto Lozano, an official representative of the Mexican government stating to the San Diego Minutemen, "This has, and will be Mexico again." all you responded with was a form letter on why you support the DREAM Act?

Do you not believe that it's important for Mexico to apologize and clarify their position, after all, this was an OFFICIAL of Mexico's government, not just some illegal that snuck in here.

 

[RodISHI]

I would ask them, when they planned on filing bankruptcy--& dissolving the Federal government.

I am thinking more along the lines of asking "Why does the various federal OIG offices allow inconsistentcies in their audits pertaining to banks that have used federal gaurantees to simply be swept under the rug?"

Can anyone in the federal government actually do simple math?

 

[RodISHI]

I wouldn't ask either of them anything. I would explain Austrian-economics to both of them, and I'd commend Senator Voinovich for retiring in 2010 and recommend to Senator Brown that he resign.

Pertaining to Austrian-economics. Only if you can give me the short version between now and next week so I personally understand what you are talking about.

 

[Bern80]

I would ask them why the stimulus bill does not more directly address the immediate needs of the economy and has so much relatively less immeditaely important spending in it?

What would be your direct suggestions in order to cover immediate needs?

I mean if we can direct these guys in the right direction it helps. We need to be specific so they can be specific when they go into their meetings.

How?

Why?

What will/can it accomplish?

How?

Have a real discussion about what NEEDS to be in this bill to address immediate needs. Have a line by line discussion about, given the situation we are in right now and the purpose of this bill, whether this line of spending, worthy as it may be, needs to be in THIS bill NOW. I have actually read some of this bill and just as an example, I don't know why it has been labeled a priority that NASA needs a few billion dollars to conduct climate research. In reading through about 10 pages I found maybe two spending items that would clearly create jobs. One of them wasn't even private sector jobs (more funding to hire more police). This bill reads more like an omnibus spending bill than anything that reflects urgency in reviving the economy.

Why?

Because someday the chickens will come home to roost. Our debt has soard in the last 8 years. Bush is to blame and as much as libs like to point that out they would also have to admit that Obama will most likely just keep tacking on to that, nevermind reversing the trend.

What would like it to accomplish?

Get is back to robust economy of course. Improve the value of the dollar. If you think we have an inflation problem, you ain't seen nothin' yet.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I wouldn't ask either of them anything. I would explain Austrian-economics to both of them, and I'd commend Senator Voinovich for retiring in 2010 and recommend to Senator Brown that he resign.

Pertaining to Austrian-economics. Only if you can give me the short version between now and next week so I personally understand what you are talking about.

I suppose the short version is: Government intervention in the market is bad, government intervention during a recession to "fix" the market is worse.

 

[RodISHI]

I would ask them why the stimulus bill does not more directly address the immediate needs of the economy and has so much relatively less immeditaely important spending in it?

What would be your direct suggestions in order to cover immediate needs?

I mean if we can direct these guys in the right direction it helps. We need to be specific so they can be specific when they go into their meetings.

How?

Why?

What will/can it accomplish?

How?

Have a real discussion about what NEEDS to be in this bill to address immediate needs. Have a line by line discussion about, given the situation we are in right now and the purpose of this bill, whether this line of spending, worthy as it may be, needs to be in THIS bill NOW. I have actually read some of this bill and just as an example, I don't know why it has been labeled a priority that NASA needs a few billion dollars to conduct climate research. In reading through about 10 pages I found maybe two spending items that would clearly create jobs. One of them wasn't even private sector jobs (more funding to hire more police). This bill reads more like an omnibus spending bill than anything that reflects urgency in reviving the economy.

Why?

Because someday the chickens will come home to roost. Our debt has soard in the last 8 years. Bush is to blame and as much as libs like to point that out they would also have to admit that Obama will most likely just keep tacking on to that, nevermind reversing the trend.

What would like it to accomplish?

Get is back to robust economy of course. Improve the value of the dollar. If you think we have an inflation problem, you ain't seen nothin' yet.

I agree with you on that last line there. I am not familar with the "omnibus spending bill" I need to keep whatever it is I say as simple as possible. A old hand taught me that years ago. He said, "If you really want to get their attention address them as if you were speaking to a kindergarten class."

How do you reverse that trend without starving the average people out in the interim? Think on that one.

 

[Jon]

jsanders, I may have misunderstood what you were saying. Did you mean to say that Article I, Section 8, clause 1 was passed in order to pay for the Civil War?

Yes, I did. The cost of the war was devastating. Congress passed a law giving them the power to levy taxes to provide defense and warfare for the country. It was the first income tax levied in our country.

That's one hell of a case of foresight.

Ha, I see what you mean. What I meant was that Article I gives them the power, but it was not exercised until the Civil War.

 

[editec]

I would (actually have in two cases) asked then why they consistently voted for FREE TRADE when it was so obvious that American workers were going to lose their jobs because of it.

Their answer?

To help increase the sale of exports.

Apparently the pernicious effects of the trade imbalance wasn't something they were very familiar with, or something.