One More Year!

[Stingray427]

I love Cursed. Hes always full of useless relevent trivia that throws your brain off track.

[EternallyIgnorant]

The times when federal income taxes were enacted into law tended to be during times of war to pay for the war. When the war was over and the debt of the war was paid down taxes went away.

maybe this is why we seem to be involved in a war every 15-20 years :)

Except we are involved in a war closer to ever 1.5 to 2.0 years. :ohnoes:

[Team Brian GB]

You can also argue that before income tax you didn't have the likes of medicare, a standing army, NASA, a national transportation infrastructure, social security, foreign aid, etc. etc. etc.

[cursed74]

Except that income tax doesn't pay for any of that stuff. We have a FICA and SS tax that comes out of our checks also.

[Team Brian GB]

true- income tax was only introduced in Britain during the Napoeleonic Wars (though was due to fighting a colonial rebellion which ended in 1783- so thanks for that), but it is fair to say that in eras gone by governments used to spend money on absolutely nothing whereas now they are the biggest agents in their respective economies.

[outsider]

I never get benefit from Medicare. I can't afford my own health insurance and in fact insurance companies I have tried to get signe dup with deny me due to having asthma. Paying for medicare means I get worse off without any benefit.

Standing armies were paid for by tariffs taken from international trade. Actually that's where most federal funding came from in the first place. Social Security is taken out of our paychecks seperate from federal income tax and is something none of us other than Ray are ever likely to see.

NASA is cool and ould pay for itself from as much stuff as it has patented.

National infrastructure is by and large taken care of by the states and paid for by gasoline taxes.

[HaloGuardian]

You can also argue that before income tax you didn't have the likes of medicare, a standing army, NASA, a national transportation infrastructure, social security, foreign aid, etc. etc. etc.

I believe Ron Paul adressed this exact issue. He said that if we eliminated the income tax the federal government would still have enough income to pay for the budget of just 10 years ago. 10 years ago we had all of those things.

[cursed74]

and property taxes pay for local streets, sewers and schools

[cursed74]

I believe Ron Paul adressed this exact issue. He said that if we eliminated the income tax the federal government would still have enough income to pay for the budget of just 10 years ago. 10 years ago we had all of those things.
doesn't income tax go to pay down the national debt anyway?

[HaloGuardian]

yeah, just like the lottery funds public schools, the military is used to defend the US, and Bush is the one of the most honest Presidents ever.

[cursed74]

http://www.devvy.com/notax.html

[outsider]

and property taxes pay for local streets, sewers and schools

Gas taxes should already maintain roads. Sewage is a pid for service everywhere I've lived and schools quite frankly need a reset.

I honestly hate property taxes more than income tax.

[cursed74]

Fuel tax is used to maintain US and State highways. Property tax is used to maintain county and city streets.

[djangojazz]

You know there is a difference between state and federal taxes right?

You know that roads are maintained primarily by gasoline and petroleum taxes right?

No I never have looked up everything one or the other covers since state to state they can run their governments differently and I would have to know 50 well to even attempt to discuss it. But I do know that the Federal government does not offer an annual statement to stockholders/taxpayers of what it does with it's money or to my knowledge you can see most of what it does. I could very well be wrong but I have never encountered in my times a site that shows what the government has spent on broken out by statement of cash flows, balance sheet, and capital expenditures. You can say these amounts enacted into law equal 1.2 trillion, but you can't see the sales slips. You can see more along the lines of what Conress will vote to spend on or voted on, but not money spent.

States like we live in like Oregon do not have a (edit)sales(/edit) tax. It's true you go to store and buy something for $19.99 it's $19.99 that's it, lot's of people that live just north of us in Vancouver come here to shop and work and live in Vancouver. We have a higher state tax though and Multnomah which is the county that Portland is in increased their taxes for 2 years to pay for some things one of which is that stupid waste of money sky tram (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f4/PortlandTramCar3.jpg) for OHSU that besides looking pretty does't do much for tax payers. I do know from simply living here that taxes are done very differently but it's nice to that Oregon when it had has a surplus gives back the money to the people in a kicker check. Mine helped a lot with Christmas this year.


You know that the USA has had more periods without taxes than with right? Did you also know we weren't really hurting for money or services at those times either?

I did not know that actually. Did taxation take more effect after the New Deal and industrialization of the military complex? I do know that the office of the interior I saw interviewed by a member of the editing team of Consumer Affairs and was asking something like 'Why can't we see or tax money, where does are money go'. The interview ended but I do remember that FDR or someone was quoted on the program as saying that the average American taking inflation into consideration would never pay more than $20 to the US government. I completely agree that the government spends more than it used to but it would be a good paper for a college student to research also if that statistic is true for other countries spending or is it just us? I see lot's of governments doing more with more money, Giant channels from England to France, Super Trains in Asia, a Mega Hydro Damn near Beijing. I'm not saying the government pays for all those things, I'm saying I'm not sure. But what I do know is that switching jobs in the military or departments would still limit jobs if jobs creation wasn't a big big ideal of every change. Personally I just half the idea that job creation and demand can foster a lot of positive change, but must be one of the first implementations, not the last.


Ron Paul is one of the few politicians who has a voting record consistent with what eh actually says and consistent over the course of his career. He isn't pro war in Iraq one day and anti war in Iraq during voting season.

I also remember that resolution of executive force after 9/11 was about 99 to 1 in the senate, and the resolution of 2002 was about 77 to 23 in the senate. People play the card that people can't be trusted that voted one way, but in that case why not vote out everyone of those 77 in senate that voted yes. Some people in that pool are let to be believed they are scot free or honest and others are lying? What about the US president and Cheney and Rumsfeld then? Wasn't the whole resolution given to the senate that Iraq was an imminent threat, had links to Al Queda and was developing WMD and that Colin Powel could show mobile chemical weapons labs to us on TV showing that UN Resolution 1441 should be ignored?

But some will base their entire faith on someone on one issue made way back when that they crusade on and never mention a lot of what else they do or have done. I'm using Paul as an example because besides people praising him on that thing they often don't mention much about him wanting to get out of NATO and the UN, that he favored Reagan back in the day, that he is pro life but decided states should favor their own laws, and talks about repealing the income tax and destroying the fed reserve. One of the hard reasons I find to vote for him is he is at a loss to propose what he would do after he destroys things. I mean if people see a problem with sewage and you say: "I will destroy all sewage and give everyone and all the water they can drink if elected". It's great but what will you do about the jobs and industry you destroyed? If you just favor non intervention why not get rid of your job too?


Most of these things you are worried about covering the cost of should be handled at the state level without losing the overhead that goes to different federal agencies.And history will show that this works.

I completely agree but I believe in ying and yang too. If you destroy something on the fed you need to displace it to the state or private sector. You don't just destroy something without idea after or someone else will come in and make what they see is an opening to change something for their gain. I guess that's where I'm a cynic. I don't believe a completely open system will result in the best for the people because some will just steal or manipulate it. I think a completely open electoral representative system that is completely transparent would be a great idea, but I'm sure someone or in the future will have a better one. Positive changes I have my own ideas such as energy co ops where you vote on peak wattage hours and a county or such owns their grid jointly and decides how it operates. This I think would be better for future developments regionly of alternative ideas, you live in the sun your county could vote to have solar more, you live in the plains and it's windy, turbine props more, you live near waterfalls, let's build some hyrdroelectric. I think if you look at history a lot of great inventions and ideas were built through change a nessesity.


The times when federal income taxes were enacted into law tended to be during times of war to pay for the war. When the war was over and the debt of the war was paid down taxes went away.

I kind of expected that but did not know it exactly note for note. I do know that a lot of industries during WWII got commissioned to make material and equipment for the US militarizes. And that Eisenhower warned when leaving office the dangers of having an economy built around the military during peace times. We have that already, and the amount of wars we go to for things we should never fucking care about is ridiculous. What wars out of Korea, Vietnam, Iran-Iraq in 80's had positive consequences for the world? If anything wars we have fought have bit us in the ass years later because it developed hatred for us at a deep level and those in this country that support the wars are usually the brain dead rednecks that will never look at any history just blindly support whatever needs to be blown up next the way they view things. I think one of the best things about Paul is his idea of "non intervention" but I like Hillary and Obama as well for their ideas on global policy and ideas. My opinion only, so don't someone take it like their crusade against me later; every other candidate seems in this fantasy that it's "Us versus them" and the longer you continue to think that the more paranoid you become, the less you can barter and trade with others, and the less people want to hear what you have to say because it's me me me.

[outsider]

I know we don't have the lowest state income taxes. Frankly I'm a lot less hesitant to complain about those taxes as they get reinvested back into our communities.... well in theory anyways.

I agree the Sky Tram is a waste and was by and alarge a lie told be developers to boost property values for some and to severely decrease property value for others. I know I wouldn't want to live under it. The Oregon Department of Revenue sent my kicker check to an old address and refuses to send it to my current address even though Ihad kept my address updated.

I was going to write out a bit of the history of the income tax and while fact checking what I had written I found the US Treasury site actually has a pretty thorough history of it.
http://www.treas.gov/education/fact-sheets/taxes/ustax.shtml


I agree that it is a good idea to vote out those 77 people. The thing is though that mot constituents are dreadfully ignorant and will believe a candidate running on an anti-war platform even when that same candidate is voting for the war and thsoe votes being a part of public record. I am also in favor of removing lying PResidents as well.

Federal Income Tax that actually returns to our communities is just wealth redistribution. I would rather build the Oregon economy and pay Oregon tax to fun Oregon schools, roads and healthcare than to fund schools in some podunk part of Mississippi that does nothing but fail. I'd rather do away with the whole Medicare system and just do an Oregon tax to fund universal healthcare for all Oregonians.

There isn't any reason why our state should have to deal with a budget crisis. We have a pretty big economy and have some very sizable corporations based or heavily entrenched in our state. Yes if I am to take on a tax burden I would rather take it on for the state I live in than a state I may or may not ever visit. Why should we pay taxes to a Federal Department of Education as well as a State run Department of Education? It just doesn't make sense.

You want to know what our global policy ought to be? Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none. Ron Paul is the only andidate that doesn't give an "us versus them" attitude in my opinion.

[djangojazz]

I know we don't have the lowest state income taxes. Frankly I'm a lot less hesitant to complain about those taxes as they get reinvested back into our communities.... well in theory anyways.

I mean sales tax, I just forgot to edit it. No we don't, some actually have a high sales tax and hardly any income tax. We are weird but I actually enjoy it here for how the state spends the money based on where else I have lived.


I agree the Sky Tram is a waste and was by and alarge a lie told be developers to boost property values for some and to severely decrease property value for others. I know I wouldn't want to live under it. The Oregon Department of Revenue sent my kicker check to an old address and refuses to send it to my current address even though Ihad kept my address updated.

I would have contacted my former address too, that sucks man.


I was going to write out a bit of the history of the income tax and while fact checking what I had written I found the US Treasury site actually has a pretty thorough history of it.
http://www.treas.gov/education/fact-sheets/taxes/ustax.shtml

That link was great, it's interesting though that when the economy is doing well the taxes are brought down like the 20's, 80's taxes are brought down. In the 90's taxes were slightly increased for what was it it said 33 to 39% of the highest bracket. There were surpluses, Bush lowered them to 31% and many say that helped the downturn be less. It's just different ideals but incorporating more benefits to Social Security was dumb, the matching idea is kind of neat. Meaning you pay 1/2 your employer pays 1/2 of your SS, still with all the things added and inflow of those getting older than 65 and retiring, it's not working. I agree with the idea that helping those in areas that aren't keeping up is not fair in many programs. Welfare was a big sore point for me, I remember writing on it, but alas I forgot most of what I researched just that what I found was very disheartening.


I agree that it is a good idea to vote out those 77 people. The thing is though that mot constituents are dreadfully ignorant and will believe a candidate running on an anti-war platform even when that same candidate is voting for the war and thsoe votes being a part of public record. I am also in favor of removing lying PResidents as well.

I think it would be interested to limit terms on all representation throughout as well as family heritage in office. EG Bush can't have Jeb, or his young cousin whoever get in later and have him as advisor, just as Hillary can't have Chelsea or such. I think it would keep the system smaller and easier to maintain trust and again transparency. It seems in the complex world we live in the longer someone is their the more damage they can do. In that note I would vote for Obama sine he has only been in since 2004 and has great ideas on transparency of government spending. I'm all for transparency using the web, accounting, and positive representation. Generally in my work the quickest way to get someone to shut up about how busy they are when you can see them having personal time all day long is to compare jobs. Indeed I believe it was, damn the mayor of New York now, what's his name? He wanted to have more open door meetings, more of his staff know what everyone else is doing. I'm all for sharing, it's people that have a lot to hide that scare me. Which in that vein, no I'm not that for Hillary due to that.


Federal Income Tax that actually returns to our communities is just wealth redistribution. I would rather build the Oregon economy and pay Oregon tax to fun Oregon schools, roads and healthcare than to fund schools in some podunk part of Mississippi that does nothing but fail. I'd rather do away with the whole Medicare system and just do an Oregon tax to fund universal healthcare for all Oregonians.

I completely agree with that. That's why I move around a lot to decide where I want to live at. The grass is always greener but Oregon has pretty green grass and although the people can't drive worth a damn they are pretty sarcastic and witty with business. The biggest problem I see is that Oregonians are happy with their economy the way it is. They don't want to get to big, housing prices were rising but not compared to other major markets like Seattle, San Fran, or places from Richmond Va to Boston Mass. I like Oregon it's just competitive, you need to be pretty smart to get a real job here or at least be lucky or have connections. People are flaky here but ehhh no place is perfect and I've lived in..... 4 states for a long enough time to get a feel for them Maryland, South Carolina, Arizona, Oregon.


There isn't any reason why our state should have to deal with a budget crisis. We have a pretty big economy and have some very sizable corporations based or heavily entrenched in our state. Yes if I am to take on a tax burden I would rather take it on for the state I live in than a state I may or may not ever visit. Why should we pay taxes to a Federal Department of Education as well as a State run Department of Education? It just doesn't make sense.

What's even worse is when a federal program makes things worse. I don't know all the in's and outs but I remember when I moved here in 2002 their was a lot of shortage of school days and a loss of money in the education market. I can't blame everything for it but I know new mandates at the federal level were issued under "No Child Left Behind". Did it cause all the problems? Not saying that, just saying it made changes that did cause problems.


You want to know what our global policy ought to be? Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none. Ron Paul is the only andidate that doesn't give an "us versus them" attitude in my opinion.

That get's to an ethical decision too. Do you vote for who you really want or do you look at probability and see someone you don't want to win and vote against them on best probable to win against them? Politics in this country are more of a spectacle now then ever with rival news networks making polar centric viewpoints, filmmakers making opinion generated films to critique the times. I think we are at a transitioned time as it is now, the 00's don't have the persona of much but war and anger. I think it's time for a change for the positive, it could get worse I'm sure but I have hope for the future. And I want to see if Ron Paul does a Ross Perot or not. If he doesn't win the GOP nomination, which right now looks slim, is he running independent or on a new platform? Those are thing that have me very curious lately.

[outsider]

You know why people vote for the "lesser of two evils"? They think the guy with a good idea ill never win and so they never vote for him.

[cursed74]

I'm hoping that Ron Paul runs as an independent in Nov so that I don't have to vote for the lesser of two evils.