Prev: Driving Courses
Next: Electrical safety training
From: Dave Head on 28 Jun 2010 20:47 On Mon, 28 Jun 2010 14:11:25 +0000 (UTC), Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS(a)yahoo.com> wrote: Say, I don't think I've ever talked to someone who is as big a radical as you. No taxation results in no government, and since one of the best functions of government is defense, we'd all just end up as slaves to a foreign power. I guess there's no point in talking about it. As for the video, if there was 3 parts, I guess you shoulda given me 3 links, eh? Walter Williams wasn't quite so fat in those days, was he? I think you could be president of the "hate America first" crowd...
From: Ray Fischer on 29 Jun 2010 02:56 Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >On 2010-06-28, Dave Head <rally2xs(a)att.net> wrote: >>>1) We don't need to be taxed. >> Like saying we don't need a government. >Like saying we don't need a street gang ruling over us. Thieves whine when they're expected to pay for the services they use. -- Ray Fischer rfischer(a)sonic.net
From: Ray Fischer on 29 Jun 2010 02:58 Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >On 2010-06-29, Dave Head <rally2xs(a)att.net> wrote: >> On Mon, 28 Jun 2010 14:11:25 +0000 (UTC), Brent >><tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> Say, I don't think I've ever talked to someone who is as big a radical >> as you. No taxation results in no government, and since one of the >> best functions of government is defense, we'd all just end up as >> slaves to a foreign power. > >I'm sorry, I don't see the need to have taxes as my number one expense >not even including the inflation tax. Because you're stupid. > Nobody invaded this >country before 1940 when federal taxes "federal taxes" >totaled less than 7% of national >income. It reached 20% in 1956*. What it is now has got to be >considerably more. You don't know? You're just spewing your idiotic whining? > Last I heard a 100% tax starting now wouldn't cover >the obligations of the welfare-warfare state There is no "welfare state", dumbass rightard. -- Ray Fischer rfischer(a)sonic.net
From: Matthew Russotto on 2 Jul 2010 21:57 In article <i05hss02c2g(a)news7.newsguy.com>, Nate Nagel <njnagel(a)roosters.net> wrote: > >You're confusing inflation with with devaluation. I'm not talking about >changing the price of domestically produced goods; I'm talking about >making the dollar less valuable against the yen, the euro, the pound >sterling etc. > >now how to accomplish that... We did accomplish it as part of the destruction of our economy. But then everyone realized the Europeans were even worse off, so theirs fell as well. And the yen is all linked in with it as well. The renminbi yuan is a different story; the Chinese government is holding it low, subsidizing Westerner consumers on the backs of their people, while keeping a nice cut for themselves. Not really much we can do about it unless you want to engage in serious protectionism, which will likely damage us as much as them. -- The problem with socialism is there's always someone with less ability and more need.
From: Matthew Russotto on 2 Jul 2010 22:07
In article <rsog26pt4odipidjv8p1cklbk8i185n5mj(a)4ax.com>, Dave Head <rally2xs(a)att.net> wrote: > > >>Replacing the income tax only means we get the replacement AND the >>income tax. The income tax will return. > >Maybe, if we're weak. Don't be ridiculous. Not "if we're weak". In fact, it won't return; it'll just never go away. Were you to get your replacement tax passed, they start the new tax on Year 1 and "phase out" the old tax by Year 5. Then some "emergency" would happen during the "phase out" and it would end up indefinitely postponed. -- The problem with socialism is there's always someone with less ability and more need. |