If a van load of people showed up at your house with guns, turned off your electricity, cutoff your garbage service, and then drove around the house to make sure none of your neighbors tried to fight them, would you greet them as liberators?
What if the head guy had a Jesus complex, and constantly made tactical mistakes?
But it's all good. Don't worry, they're telling you their going to leave when you are able to run your own house. After all, they got rid of that Uncle that kept the rest of the family from fighting because they thought he still had some guns they'd given him 20 years ago.
President Bush, in his press conference today spoke of the need to set benchmarks (most of which we've already met!!!), so we could tell the Iraqi government that it was time for them to step up and take control of its future.
I'd bet we've setup a timetable, that only our two governments know about.
This is the same strategy that the Democrats have been urging for years. The tactics, however are slightly different.
We're not interested in letting the Iraqi rebels (shouldn't that be what they're called, aren't they fighting the duly elected government over there?) know when we're leaving, but we're pretty much telling them we're leaving.
I guess the Bush administration doesn't think the Iraqi rebels will notice us pulling back. If we'd put enough troops in their to get the job done in the first place, there'd be no doubt we were withdrawing. Of course, we wouldn't have been there for going on 5 years if we'd gone in to win in the first place.
As Ive said before, that's why I'm against pre-emptive war. We shouldn't use force unless there is no other alternative. You do know that Saudi Arabia (another country that benefits from the chaos in Iraq) had more to do with 9/11 than Iraq did, right?................right?
President Bush: If you want to enact Democratic plans (like No Child Left Behind, the Homeland Security Department, tax breaks for hybrid cars even if he did laugh at that one to begin with, and the Sneak and Run), would you please do it a little quicker. While you are waiting the 2 months between Democratic suggestion, and your enacting of the plan (after re-wording the Democratic plan to make sure it will never work), our kids are dying over there.
President Bush: Support the Troops.............Enact your cheat of Democratic strategy within 2 weeks of their suggestion. I'll even talk to them about going ahead and really screwing it up (shouldn't be a problem) before it gets to you, so you won't have to stay up past 9p.m. to read it.
Thursday, July 12, 2007
Sneak and Run: Presiden't Bush Answers His Democratic Strategists, er.... uh Critics..
Sunday, May 13, 2007
General says he needs more troops
| Related | |
| - | Latest coverage of the Iraq war |
Army Maj. Gen. Benjamin R. "Randy" Mixon also said that the Iraqi government had failed to help the situation in the restive province and that it has been a hindrance at times by failing to support local army and police forces. Diyala borders Baghdad on the east, and violence in the province has grown as U.S. troop levels have been bolstered in the capital.
Mixon's call for help coincides with a rise in the number of sectarian death squad killings in Baghdad. U.S. officials had heralded an earlier decline in such deaths as a sign of the success of the security clampdown in the capital that began Feb. 13.
Iraq's Interior Ministry said 234 people — men whose bodies were found throughout the capital — died at the hands of death squads in the first 11 days of May, compared with 137 in the same period of April. The tally so far for May is more than half the total for all of April, when 440 bodies were found. That was a decline from previous months.
Calling the increase "very minimal," U.S. military spokesman Army Maj. Gen. William B. Caldwell IV said that "there has been a slight uptick, and we're obviously very concerned about it."
Mixon, speaking Friday by teleconference from Camp Speicher, outside Tikrit, to a Pentagon news conference, said that he did not have enough soldiers to provide security in Diyala. The local government is "nonfunctional" and the central government is "ineffective," he said.
"I'm going to need additional forces," he said, "to get that situation to a more acceptable level, so the Iraqi security forces will be able in the future to handle that."
It is rare for an officer of Mixon's rank to publicly call for more troops. When Donald H. Rumsfeld was secretary of Defense, there was intense pressure on officers to not make such requests, even privately, according to officers who served in Iraq.
Mixon was withering in his criticism of the Iraqi government, saying it was hamstrung by bureaucracy and compromised by corruption and sectarian discord, making it unable to assist U.S. forces in Diyala.
The province is ethnically mixed and has long been home to elements of the Sunni Muslim-based insurgency. As the number of American forces has increased in Baghdad and Al Anbar province in the west, radicals in the insurgency and in Shiite Muslim death squads have moved into Diyala, which has fewer U.S. troops.
There is one U.S. Army brigade, or about 3,500 troops, in the province, compared with 10 brigades in and around Baghdad and four in Al Anbar. Sixty-one U.S. soldiers have been killed in Diyala this year, compared with 20 last year, according to icasualties.org, an independent website that tracks casualties.
Mixon emphasized that he had asked for more troops shortly after arriving in Iraq in September, well before the U.S. troop buildup began in Baghdad.
Mixon said he saw that violence was rising and that the region was becoming a stronghold for Sunni extremists tied to the group Al Qaeda in Iraq.
He said that he had been given a battalion, or about 800 soldiers, as reinforcement and that Army Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, the day-to-day commander in Iraq, has said he would send additional forces when possible.
"The level of violence began to increase before the surge," Mixon said, referring to the Baghdad buildup. "It has increased, of course, during the surge … [because] we are sure that there are elements, both Sunni extremist and Shia extremist, that have moved out of Baghdad."
Mixon's comments were the first of what could be a succession of blunt evaluations by officers under Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, said retired Army Maj. Gen. William L. Nash, a veteran of the Bosnian conflict who is now an analyst with the Council on Foreign Relations.
"I suspect the new Defense secretary has told general officers to speak their minds," Nash said.
"It's going to be hard for some in the administration — suddenly they're going to feel it from the inside. I think you're going to see more of it," he said.
One Pentagon official said Mixon's public request was being viewed as an attempt to pressure the new commander in Iraq, Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, into sending more troops to Diyala from Baghdad, since the overstretched Army is unable to send substantial numbers of reinforcements from the U.S.
But Mixon is not known for dealing with private disputes in such ways, said one recently retired Army general who is close to the commander. Instead, his frankness probably stems from a new "command climate" under Petraeus that is more conducive to blunt evaluations, the general said.
Many Army generals also have been stung by disclosures by officers. A recent article in the Armed Forces Journal by Lt. Col. Paul Yingling, an Iraq veteran who is deputy commander of the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment, accused the Army's top generals of botching the war and misleading the American public and Congress.
"That's weighing on the consciences of the general officers of our Army," Nash said. Yingling "said they failed to live up to their sacred oath of telling the truth. As a consequence, I think everybody is saying: 'Not me. I'm not going to be guilty of that.' "
In Baghdad, where the Interior Ministry reports the number of bodies found on the city's desolate streets, in its rubble heaps and empty lots and under overpasses and bridges, there is little indication of who is doing the killing or whether the victims are Sunni or Shiite.
Death squad killings have generally been linked to Shiite militias. At the start of the Baghdad security crackdown, the militias reined in their activities as U.S. and Iraqi troops set up dragnets to enforce the plan. The pullback also came at the order of radical Shiite cleric Muqtada Sadr, who was lending support to the Shiite-led government.
The security plan, however, has failed to quell attacks on Shiites by Sunni insurgents, so it was natural that some Shiite militiamen would return to action, said Joost Hiltermann, an expert on Iraq's sectarian war at the International Crisis Group in Amman, Jordan.
"It is consistent with what we know, which is that the Sadrist movement, which melted away once the surge was announced, is very unhappy about the leadership ordering them to go underground," Hiltermann said. Now, he said, many Shiite fighters, both from Sadr's Al Mahdi militia and from the Badr Organization, a rival Shiite group, have been provoked by escalating suicide bombings.
Hiltermann said many of them probably were operating independently, as Shiite leaders have continued to urge restraint.
"It is still limited compared to what it was" before the security plan, he said, when masked gunmen often set up illegal checkpoints. Sunnis traveling through Shiite areas or Shiites traveling through Sunni areas could be dragged from their cars and executed if stopped at such checkpoints.
In January, death squads killed 830 people, and it was common for more than 40 bodies to be found each day. The toll dropped to 530 in February, when the security plan began, and was 542 in March.
Saturday, May 12, 2007
Packed Into Prisons, With No Relief in Sight
Civics & Society · Nation · News You Might Have Missed · May 10, 2007
Crowded jails from the Mexican border to North Carolina have prisoners packed into cells, sleeping in day rooms and struggling with overflowing sewers and waste water.
There's plenty of money in Arizona for boosted border patrols, which capture more illegal immigrants who are then charged with felonies.
But the Christian Science Monitor reports that funding is in short supply for overwhelmed courts and jails along the border.
The federal caseload in Arizona increased 94 percent between 1996 and 2006 -- so many new cases that attorneys are forced to spend less time on each suspect.
In the Navajo Nation, most lawbreakers never do time in local jails, which are overcrowded and plagued by sewage overflows.
Inmates are sometimes sent to state prisons in Arizona and New Mexico, which are also too full to take them long-term.
Tribal officials say federal funding is scarce and only covers staffing, not construction or repair costs.
In Greensboro, North Carolina, where jails are over capacity and in decline, county officials are trying to build a new facility, but don't know how to pay for it.
Some favor asking voters for a bond measure, while others believe funding should go to services that would divert the mentally ill from prison and put some inmates under house arrest.
In the meantime, prisoners are crowded into cells, and frequently turn to beatings and fights to resolve disputes.
Sources:
"U.S. border crackdown jams federal courts"
Christian Science Monitor, May 7, 2007
"Navajo Nation struggles to house inmates"
Associated Press, May 6, 2007
"Bursting at the seams"
News-Record (NC), May 6, 2007
Friday, May 11, 2007
The Democrats And Their Politics Of War
I’ve said it before, but it’s worth repeating.
The Democratic leadership has got to stop playing this political game. It’s not very becoming.
Has sending the bill to President Bush calling for a withdrawal date (and peanuts) worked for them politically?
Yes, of course it has. The American people are unhappy with the conduct of the war by the civilian leadership, and they overwhelmingly think that the war was a mistake.
Sometimes when you stand on the fence, you’re the first to get shot.
The President has made it very clear. He will not withdraw from Iraq while he is President. I do not believe the current President to be the most trustworthy, but I take him at his word on this one.
So that leaves Congress with two choices. Support the war, or vote to cut funding.
We had a chance to change civilian leadership in 2004, and we chose to “stay the course”. The President is Commander In Chief. He’s the decider. As funny as that sounds, and as wrong as he is on many other issues, he’s got the constitution to back his play on that statement.
I was against going to Iraq, and I’m opposed to staying unless we fight to win. I believe the President has made it clear that he’s not interested in making that happen.
Tell your Representative and Senators to take a stand, either way, on this issue, Tell them we’re tired of the politics of war, and we’re ready to either fight to win, or leave.
If not, its our honorable military that we keep on that fence. They deserve better.
L.A. Times: Libertarian article posted March 25th, 2007
Libertarians' silver lining
Americans continue to be suspicious of radical third-party alternatives — if they are lucky enough to be aware of them — thanks largely to media that foster a feedback loop of "they can't win, so why cover them?" However, including about 600 candidates on every level — local, state and federal — the Libertarian Party attracted more than 13 million votes in 2006.
But counting votes for third parties isn't the best way to judge the growth and prospects of libertarianism in the United States. Libertarian ideas should never be counted out in this country because they are at the heart of its founding.
The central insight of libertarianism is in the Declaration of Independence. We have the right to life, liberty and the ability to pursue happiness (though no guarantee of achieving it). Government's only purpose is to help protect those rights — and if it fails, we have the right to alter or abolish it.
But from the declaration on, in some libertarians' telling, it has been downhill for liberty in this country. Certainly libertarian sensibilities were offended by the expansion of government's ability to tax, manage and regulate the economy and our private lives in the 20th century, and by the projection of U.S. military might overseas for reasons other than direct defense of the American people.
In the immediate aftermath of the New Deal, the modern American libertarian movement first began to coalesce in the works of such feisty American female novelists and philosophers as Isabel Paterson, Rose Wilder Lane and Ayn Rand, and in the insights of Austrian economists Ludwig von Mises and F.A. Hayek.
But the libertarian movement began as a reaction to how alien the ideas of unbridled individual and market liberty had become. When former Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce chief Leonard Read launched the first libertarian think tank, the Foundation for Economic Education, in 1946, his ideas about limited government and free markets were so marginal in the United States as to seem almost seditious.
Lane was investigated by the FBI in the early postwar years for daring to write on a postcard that Social Security was the sort of socialistic government management of people's lives we fought wars against. True Social Security, she insisted, was canned vegetables and slaughtered pigs in your cellar. She and Paterson refused to accept anything from the Social Security system.
In 1950, the Buchanan Committee, a House panel investigating lobbying efforts, found Read and his foundation positively un-American because they opposed price controls, public housing, the draft and loyalty oaths. The committee subpoenaed records, called Read to testify and ordered some of his supporters to report on which organizations they backed. One foundation funder, Southern California Edison Vice President William Mullendore, denied Congress' right to make such a "harassing and burdensome inquiry" into his attempts to influence his government. Mullendore got away with his defiance — but today's campaign finance laws allow such governmental intrusion.
When, in 1964, Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater used libertarian ideas to decry the excessive growth of government, he was defeated by what was at the time the largest margin of votes in U.S. history. He also was condemned as "psychologically unfit" by more than 1,000 psychiatrists (who never met him) for his belief that the managerial-welfare state in the United States had strayed too far from the country's roots.
Libertarian ideas had a tumultuous period of expansion in the years after Goldwater. Rand became a campus favorite, selling novels of uncompromising libertarianism to tens of millions. A Harvard philosophy professor, Robert Nozick, won a National Book Award for his 1974 book, "Anarchy, State and Utopia," which rigorously maintained that if we have rights, then most of the functions of the modern state, including redistributing wealth and outlawing certain drugs, are philosophically illegitimate.
Also in 1974, Hayek won the Nobel Prize for economics. Hayek is best known for his 1944 book, "The Road to Serfdom," which demonstrated to those who believed in a benign socialism that government economic control tends inexorably toward political tyranny. Two years later, Milton Friedman, a man as well known for his libertarian polemics as for his economic contributions, also won the Nobel Prize for economics. Libertarian ideas were moving toward the mainstream.
And then Ronald Reagan, who declared that "the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism," won the presidency. Libertarians never believed that Reagan fully lived up to his small-government promise. But his libertarian ideas were a key part of the GOP's electoral appeal.
Over the decades, both major parties have successfully run on libertarian fumes: see Reagan's talk of tax cutting and entitlement reform; control over inflation since the 1980s, largely thanks to Friedman's monetarist ideas (Friedman also persuaded President Nixon to end the draft in 1973), and President Clinton's overhaul of the federal welfare system, which echoed the beliefs and data in libertarian Charles Murray's 1984 book, "Losing Ground." One of the biggest policy debates of the Bush presidency has been about privatizing Social Security, an idea in the works at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, since the 1980s. Introducing market incentives and competition into government services — ideas that originated at the Reason Foundation in Los Angeles — are increasingly popular with local and state governments looking to cut costs and improve services.
A full libertarian victory is certainly unlikely, as a cursory survey of the leading presidential candidates going into 2008 shows. But libertarians can take heart in Americans' growing dissatisfaction with military intervention overseas, with the prospect of an entitlement state in which recipients far outnumber taxpayers and with government manipulations and intrusions in education, immigration, abortion and stem cell research. In such a political context, libertarian wisdom about keeping government out of our lives as much as possible looks more and more promising.
Thursday, May 10, 2007
Unity 08: Could This Be The Ticket?
The-G-Blog has noticed a trend among the readers here.
A lot of people seem to be unhappy with both major parties, no matter what your persuasion.
I’d say that these people have very good reasons, and I’d tell them I’d agree with them on a lot of them.
And then I hear “Ron Paul can’t win. Gravel, won’t get the nomination. Libertarians don’t have a chance.
Well, now I think we may be able to fight back.
During some of the comments on one of my blogs, one of my readers mentioned she wished there was a better way. I suggested to her what I’m now suggesting to you.
Go to Unity08.com. It appears they are going to have their own nomination process, and delegates will be selecting a unity ticket to run for President. I’m not aware of any candidates endorsing this “unity ticket” yet, but I’m sure as the candidates start falling off the Republican or Democrat consciousness, they may be willing to make a new home.
How about a Gravel-Paul Ticket? How about Christine Todd-Whitman and Former Senator Sam Nunn? It could happen, with the Unity Ticket.
I’ve lurked around the site some, and it still looks like they’re still getting things figured out. I saw a moderator disrespect a delegate in one of the forums, but I suppose that kind of thing will happen at the beginning.
Could this be what people are looking for? I think its too early to tell, but its worth some research.
If you decide that you do wish to become a “founding delegate”, please send me a message, because I’d like to get credit for the referral (I wouldn’t get money, but I’d hopefully be able to use the referrals to gather more information to share with you). I'd send you a form email, and you could take it from there.
They’re on myspace as well, and I’ve sent a request for more information. No response yet, but, like I said, its still early.
As always, let me know what you think. Remember, I’m not endorsing this ticket, and I’ve stated many times that I’m a Libertarian.
I’m just trying to live up to my reputation as “the most independent political blog on the net”!!
Wednesday, May 9, 2007
V.P. Cheney to Iraq: "Its Game Time"
Vice President Cheney, fresh on the ground in Iraq, is telling The Iraqi governent "Its Game Time".
Isn't it way past game time? Wasn't game time in 2003? This is not a game, Mr. Vice President, this is war.
So basically, The Vice President is starting to say what Democrats have been saying for years. That seems to be a trend in this administration. Dis the plan and then use it.
You are doing a great job showing us the Democrats plans wont work, Mr. Vice President. Bravo!!!
To me this is just another sign that we'll pretty much be out of Iraq by the 2008 election.
Tuesday, May 8, 2007
Online Poker: The G Blog's First Ever Blog !!
This is a repost of my 1st ever blog. It was on my personal myspace page. I saw the ban mentioned on a Libertarian for President's website, so I thought I'd post it here. The dates have changed, but I think its still fairly accurate:
President Bush, last Friday, signed the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 into law. The act was attached to the more known Terrorism bill which was passed with bi-partisan support after heated debate. This legislation is aimed to cutoff credit card payments to from overseas gambling sites to or from the U.S.
I have never gambled online. I have spent countless hours playing the free games that they have on most of these websites. I don't generally wager money on anything that's not a sure thing, but I am very upset that this decision has been taken away from me.
This legislation is an election year attempt by our government representatives to show the religious right that they haven't forgotten about them. Evidently most religious zealots only gamble in private games, football pools, the state sanctioned lottery, or on business trips to Las Vegas, Biloxi, and other state regulated casinos. I'd like to see how many of our elected representatives that voted for this bill have spent time doing any of the above mentioned activities, and how many of them have (or had) accounts on online poker websites.
How can the government forbid something it has already essentially left up to the states to regulate? 44 states have legalized gambling for lotteries, and almost 30 states have casinos. Shouldn't each state be the sole decider on what they allow its citizens to do? That has always been a rally-cry of the conservative movement, and appears to be the standard when it comes to gambling regulation. Supporters, I'm sure, will tell you it is a national responsibility because it involves international bank accounts. That's just their excuse. The state or federal authorities aren't able to tax these transactions, so they're essentially left out of a loop they have been so cozy within for years when it comes to state-sanctioned gambling.
I'm disappointed with the Democrats for supporting this legislation. I'm disappointed with online gamblers who voted for the Republicans who supported this action, because they should have known they were setting themselves up for something like this. I expected this from President Bush who has consistently erred on the side of less freedom since he took his oath of office.
Its too late to change the law now. Anyone who has seen government in action knows that there will never be enough support to change this legislation on its own. Our choice is to lobby our Representative, Senator and President to hide a repeal in another bill (preferably in something that sounds patriotic and American, people don't read those bills), or to support people who want to hire lawyers to challenge this, and hopefully find some loophole that can give us some paradigm of freedom.
The president and congress weren't asleep at the wheel on this one. America was.
P.S. Please visit my friends @ www.kickasspoker.com and show your support. They offer a referral service that is totally freee, legal and above-board, and they are becoming innocent victims of the government intrusion into our private lives
Monday, May 7, 2007
The-Three-State Solution In Iraq
Senator Sam Brownback (R -KS) supports the Three-State-Solution. Senator Joe Biden (D-DE) has been talking about this strategy for years.
Independent news is talking about it.
The Corporate media (CNN-Time WARNER, FOX, ABC, CBS, NBC -MSNBC, COX Media, etc), well they don't really report the news anymore..
The Three-State Solution would break Iraq into 3 separate states with a weaker national government. States rights supporters should love this idea. It would let the Shia control Shiite areas, Sunni to control Sunni areas, and the Kurds to control the North. The current plan proposed by Biden at least would divide oil profits among them, and the Iraqi people themselves (I know, where's our take, right).
This could be implemented quickly and efficiently, and allow us to get out, and I believe claim victory (although it be 4/12 yrs too late in coming)!!
I called The White House (you can do that, you know) to find out President Bush's official position.
I was transferred to comments, and was told I needed to call the press office. Without a press pass, I couldn't get thru to the press office. I was transferred to the white house website, which did not list a Three-State-Strategy, and then to the public liaison, where I spoke to Blake, who said that I'd need to speak to HOMELAND SECURITY?!?!. I'm emailing them the question, and I'll let you know the official answer.
Senator Johnny Isackson (my senator) supports a unified Iraq, and not a separation into 3 sem-autonomous states with a weaker central government
Senator Saxby Chambliss's office (my other senator) said they'd get back to me. I'll post the answer.
My Representative, John Linder's office (who I like, by the way) said they'd get back to me as well.
(contact info on your reps can be found on the left)
Could this be the plan that saves Iraq? I'm not sure, but I'd sure like to discuss it more.
Let me know your thoughts about a Three-State-Strategy in Iraq.
Can it work?
Should we try it?
Do you think its too late?
Of course its all up to President Bush. Its our job to ask the question!!
*******
UPDATE: President Bush's email response:
On behalf of President Bush, thank you for your correspondence.*******
We appreciate hearing your views and welcome your suggestions.
Due to the large volume of e-mail received, the White House cannot
respond to every message.
Thank you again for taking the time to write.
I guess there's our answer!!
Sunday, May 6, 2007
George Tenet Wants Me To Read His Book?
George Tenet has something to say. And he wants to make sure everyone knows it.
1) He did not jump up and down and tell President Bush that WMDs were a “slam dunk”. I mean, he did tell President Bush that the case for the war with Iraq was a “slam dunk”, but he did not jump up and down about it.
2) He also wants us to know that he spoke to Richard Pearle on September 12th, 2001 who told him "Iraq had to pay for the attack" . Of course, he says that the days get jumbled up and it may have been as late as late September or Early October when he said it, but he wants us to know he said it.
Mr. Tenet, I think I heard you loud and clear. You don’t want the blame for the war. And you want us to pay for a book so you to tell us this?
As far as I’m concerned George Tenet and should have been fired on September 11th, at about 12p.m.
Say what you want about September 11th (and I’ve heard a lot of different ideas, believe me), but there were definitely signs.
Tenet was a holdover from the Clinton Administration (HW Bush advised his son to keep Tenet on when he took office), and therefore had plenty of time (and information, we find in retrospect) to connect the dots.
But he did not. And now, here we are.
Mr. Tenet, I wish you’d have written a book entitled “How I Stopped An Arial Attack On America In 2001".
Now that would be a book worth reading!!!
Saturday, May 5, 2007
The Fair Tax Is The Best Solution For American Taxpayers
1. I like to argue. If I concentrated on taxes and spending, I couldn't highlight the differences between myself and the Republican party, and have good-spirited debates with other conservatives on the issues. So I agree with a lot of Democrats on a lot of social issues, that's okay with me. Be sure, they'll have their chance to disagree with me, and now might be a good chance.
2. After much thought and some reservations, I've decided to support the Fair Tax. To me, the Fair Tax would solve most of the problems associated with today's complicated tax code, and would give the power back to the taxpayer.
I'd like to discuss the Fair Tax with you. That being said, I'm not going into too much detail, because I don't want to bore you (its figures and taxes, fun!!). I do, however, have resources. ---
Basically, the Fair Tax is an embedded 23% sales tax on retail purchases. This has nothing to do with either state sales taxes, or Social Security taxes. These taxes won't change. But everything you buy (at the retail level) would contain a 23% embedded sales tax, which would replace the income tax.
Q: How did they come up with 23%
A: This is the average income tax embedded into each item you buy. For instance, if you buy a TV for $100, 23% of that went to pay income taxes for the people who made it, shipped it, and sold it
Also, each family would receive what is called a "prebate" from the government each month. This "prebate" would equal the amount of taxes that someone would spend for the basic necessities. If you only buy what you have to, you don't pay taxes (this is where the "prebate" kicks in). If you buy a luxury item, or more than is necessary to live on, you pay a tax on those items.
Q: Will this mean less money will be paid to the government
A: NO, this is a revenue-Neutral tax. The Government should take in the same amount of money. It is also not a tax cut. It is just a different (and simpler) way of collecting taxes.
The Fair Tax would eliminate the need for April 15th (not the day, but the tax deadline) for individuals. It would put business in charge of tax record-keeping and writing the check to the government each quarter. The IRS probably couldn't be eliminated (there would still be a need for some oversight, but not on the level we have today), but it would be reduced dramatically.
Also, that extra 23% that you'd pay for the item would eventually decrease, (the businesses don't have to pay the income tax, anymore and competition would reduce the price). A few years ago, an airline tax expired, and congress forgot to re-instate it. Before the end of the next day, almost all of the airlines had reduced their ticket price by about the same amount as that tax. It only took one company, trying to get a few extra customers, to get the ball started.
Q: Will I still be able to deduct things like student loan interest, and business expenses?
A: NO. You would not pay income taxes, therefore there would be no reason to deduct these items.
Q: What about my retirement, will it be affected?
A: YES. You won't have to pay income taxes on that money, or interest made from that money.
Q: The-G-Blog, you make it sound so simple, is it?
A: NO. I don't have time to go into really specific details. I've linked the sites and books below to help you gather information, and I'll be glad (and I hope some of my other readers that have more knowledge than I do) try to answer any specific questions you have in the comments, but ultimately, you are going to have to really look at the proposal to see what you think.
The Fair Tax bill has been re-introduced in this Congress (Senate S 1025, and House H25). It has some bi-partisan support, but it needs more. Rep Charlie Rangel (D NY) has supposedly agreed to really look at this bill, and he is the Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, so maybe we can at least have a debate.
Remember, lobbyists don't like the Fair Tax because it takes deduction, and special provision powers away from them in the tax code. Many in congress don't like it because it hampers their ability to spend our money on pork for their district. That should be reason enough to give this bill a chance!!
As always, thanks for the comments. I'm sure I missed something important, so if you have any questions or comments, don't hesitate to post.
Friday, May 4, 2007
The Fair Tax: Why Won't Republicans Support It
Its fair to say that we need more debates. We have enough candidates to choose from, and I don’t think many people who hadn’t decided who they support before the debates were convinced. I think that’s good.
It’s okay if you have a chosen a candidate to support, as well, but not all of us have made up our mind yet. I’ve got a feeling candidates aren’t done throwing their hat in the ring for 2008, so maybe I’ll keep my options open.
As many of you know, I am a supporter of the Fair Tax. Governor Huckabee mentioned his support for the Fair Tax tonight, as did Governor Tancredo. Senator Mike Gravel has also pledged his support for the Fair Tax.
I did some quick research on these three candidates to see more of their thoughts.
I had trouble finding Mike Huckabee’s official website. A Google search revealed his exploratory site, and some fan pages, but no “official” Huckabee for president site. Weird! Let me know if I’m wrong
Anyway, none of these pages mention the Fair Tax, and his exploratory site mentions signing the No-Tax pledge, but this isn’t the Fair Tax
Governor Tancredo does appear to have an official site. It states that he supports either a flat tax or a national sales tax, but does not mention the Fair Tax
Senator Mike Gravel, however does support the Fair Tax, on his official site. Its on the 2nd line of his issues, on the front page.
I did some research to see Rep Ron Paul’s position. There is no official position, but from what I’ve read, he won’t support it because its revenue neutral. His supporters should explain to him that this is a tax that you choose to pay, so it can be a tax cut if you want it to be.. Its your decision, and I think he could respect that
So, a Democrat is the only major Candidate that specifically supports the Fair Tax. Why is that? This is a conservative idea, but conservatives won’t support it.
Is this a case of another Democrat who’s willing to step up, and actually address the issue with ideas, while Republicans scramble for wiggle room? I think it is, and it’s why I don’t generally vote Republican.
One of many, many reasons!!
Wednesday, May 2, 2007
A Compassionate Deficit
I would like to personally thank your children for funding my government.
Thanks!
Ronald Reagan did it. George HW Bush did it. Bill Clinton.. (oh yeah that's right he had a surplus at the end of his 2nd term). George W. Bush is doing it. Why is the only time we've had a balanced budget in the last 26 years was when a Democrat was President? (Don't bother with "Bill Clinton had a Republican congress" bull-poop. So did President W. Bush, and they all had veto power)
Maybe the Republicans don't care about your children (well, after they're born, anyway.)
I had a good deal of credit card debt when I was in college. The government won't let me make my children pay for that. Why? I mean because I went to college, I'll make more money, so my kids will have a better education, and in turn make even more money. Why not make them pay for that privilege? That seems to be the American way of late.
We have soldiers overseas fighting for our freedom, and we're told if we don't support them, we're un-American. I'm afraid they're funding themselves, they just have to do it with interest. To me, that's not supporting the troops, in the most literal sense. And its not like even when Congress funds them, they get the equipment they need, and deserve. We have the ability to protect our troops from roadside bombs, we just can't get them on their vehicles.
Whitney Houston believes the children are our future. President Bush believes the children are our financiers. I have to agree with Ms. Houston on this one
Tuesday, May 1, 2007
Gangsta's Paradise Remix
I found this video, and it may be old news (I seem to behind on some of my posts, forgive me, I'm still pretty new).
I wanted to post this, and see what thoughts my readers have to say. I'm honestly not sure what to think. Its very interesting.
Gangstas Paradise Remix
Monday, April 30, 2007
So You Say You Want A Healthcare Revolution? Libertarians and Health care
Well, we all want to change the world.
But there is a better way. Now I’m sure my liberal and conservative friends can agree (finally, The-G-Blog, a uniter, not a divider) that the current way is not working. So do we let the government step in to once again solve our problems (like the war on drugs, like the prescription drug plan, etc).
Healthcare is outrageous. So is health insurance. So why shouldn’t the Federal Government implement a plan to solve the crisis?
Because they’ll make it worse, that’s why.
The government requires insurance carriers to carry certain coverages on all policies they sell. So if you are a 70 year old female who’s had your tubes tied, most likely you are required to buy pregnancy coverage through your healthcare provider, I guess just in case. Silly requirements like these drive the price up. You can’t go out and get a simple policy that covers an unexpected loss. Not because these policies wouldn’t make money, but because the state requires them to add on extra coverages, which cost extra
What about the cost?
If you have healthcare insurance through your company, the company pays about 50% of that premium (on average). So when we move to Government healthcare, your taxes will need to be increased by 2x the amount you pay now toward healthcare. And do you think that once competition is eliminated, the hospitals are going to lower their price?. Is that what we need, solve the problem by doubling our burden? I say not.
Now, I’m all for a non-profit healthcare program sponsored by the government to offer basic healthcare to those who don’t get it through their company. I would also like to see a safety net for those who couldn’t afford the premiums that the non-profit program provided. Call me the libertarian Dennis Kucinich if you will.
We should concentrate on Tort reform, more competition, and less government intervention. It’s the American way... Or at least it used to be!!
Saturday, April 28, 2007
Gore And Gingrich: A Match Made In Heaven: blogs from a Political Standpoint
If I could get one wish, I’d make it a Gingrich-Gore Presidential race in 2008. Say what you want about their policies, and idiosyncracies, but both of these non-candidates could really change the course of our country.
Vice President Gore has experience in the Senate, and in the Executive branch that no other candidate has (even Hillary Clinton). He knows foreign relations, he understands complex issues, and for heaven’s sakes, he invented the internet! I think he would have read into the memo that stated Bin Laden was determined to attack the US with planes. Sure, he might go a little overboard with the environmental cause, but it beats war, and I doubt he’d get many of his pet environmental projects through a divided Senate.
Newt Gingrich is the father of the line-item veto, and the “Contract with America”. Agree, or disagree with his ideas, this is an intellectual man (he’s a former history professor) with a lot of ideas about changing our country. He’s not your run-of-the-mill Republican, and he could really convert the middle. Sure, he’s had personal issues, but haven’t we all? I’ve always thought of him as an intellectually honest man, even when I didn’t agree with his position. Like Gore, I believe that he would have read into the memo that stated Bin Laden was determined to attack the US with planes.
I hate to say it, but I’m not sure we’ve got the best of the best candidates running for President on either side of the Aisle right now. I like Huckabee, Edwards, Obama , and sometimes McCain. But in my opinion, only two people have the experience and the ideas that could lead us into a new decade for America. Both have not decided to run yet.
Is that smart? I think it is. Its just another reason that they are on another level, at least where politics are concerned. These guys are going to wait for the Also-rans in their party to eliminate each other. Then they’re going to try to take the winner.
I think they’re winning already
The Leftist Media Declares Victory In Iraq
I was watching CNN the other day, and get ready for this........
Two correspondents, Heidi Collins and some other guy were discussing the fact that we seem to have, in part of the country anyway, found a way to win the war in Iraq.
It appears we have made agreements with several former Bathe Party leaders to give them local power in exchange for the elimination of Al Qaeda in those areas. And it seems to be working.
So now instead of U.S. troops fighting Batheists and Al Qaeda, we're letting Batheists fight Al Qaeda. Basically Saddam's army is fighting Bin Laden's army. But I thought they were friends?
Say what you want about Saddam Hussein, but he was not an Islamic Fascist. I mean, he was a Fascist, and he was Islamic, but he ran a non-sectarian government. Tariq Aziz, one of Saddam's right hand men was a Christian. He had Sunni's and Shia in his upper "management". In case you didn't want to be tortured by a Sunni, he could have a diverse group of men hang you by your toenails.
Maybe we should not tell President Bush about this. We seem to do better when he's doing the YMCA to African music. The administrations excuse always appears to be "we didn't know it was happening". Sometimes I believe them.
Of course, this is only one part of Iraq. The Shiite majority have no ties to Al Qaeda and "the list" never really got into this part of the country (Bin Laden is a member of the Whabi (sp) sect of the Suni Muslims, and we all know sunni and shia don't play nice right now). Our biggest problem now seems to be with this group. Also, where Shia and Sunni (who once lived in relative peace under Saddam) live in the same neighborhoods, there are still many issues. Neither seem to be getting better.
Maybe when Saddam's army beats Al Qaeda, we can sic them on the rest of the country. It worked for Saddam, why wouldn't it work for us?
So now it appears the best case scenario is for the Bathe Party to control the country, the elimination of Al Qaeda in Iraq, and a Stable centralized government, ran by the largest minority in the country.
That's the exact scene as the day before we invaded Iraq. But at least Haliburton and Exxon made a killing, right?
Monday, April 16, 2007
Virginia Tech Shooting
I know today's school shooting at Virginia Tech has really been terrible, on so many levels. I pray for the people who did and didn't make it, their family and friends, and anybody associated with Virginia Tech who has been personally affected by this tragedy.
I think it's a good time to have a discussion about gun-control. I'll give my thoughts first, and I hope everyone else can give their perspective.
But First:
2nd amendment:
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
I think that most Democrats want to forget it's there, and most Republicans don't read what it says.
Well-regulated means, well,,,,regulated. This is why I never believed the Brady Bill to be unconstitutional. I could site specific disagreements with the bill (some things are on there that shouldn't and some things aren't on there that should), but overall, I believe it to be constitutional.
I don't hunt. I'm not against it, bu to me ts boring, and I'm not sure I could pull the trigger. I like to eat the meat though, and I think that anyone who wants to go out and hunt, should, because I know a lot of people who really enjoy it. But you usually have to wake up early, I'm warning you!
I do own a gun. I don't get to carry it everywhere, but you better believe I can get to it if I need it (thank God I never have). If you knew what I did for a living (don't worry its legal), you'd understand.
"If firearms are outlawed, only outlaws will have them". There's some truth to that (I hate buzz words, but this one make sense) statement. I mention that because if someone in the Virginia Tech dorm or classroom other than the gunman had a gun, the story would not have ended the same, and if the shooter knew someone would, he might not even have tried.
http://www.wbir.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=43109
http://www.davekopel.com/2A/OthWr/principal&gun.htm
I could go on, but I want to make this short. I'm sure nobody is going to agree with The-G-Blog on this one, so let the debate begin!!
Saturday, April 14, 2007
I wanted to title this blog "Imus Isn't Half As Bad As Your Government Is", but I'd already used my mandatory Imus headline.
The drug war has done to more harm to society, minorities in particular, than the Iraq war has. Richard Nixon coined the term "war on drugs" in 1971 after my parents got to have all their fun (BOO!)
Approximately 55% of federal inmates are drug offenders. (http://www.drugwarfacts.org/prison.htm) It costs us about $22,000 per inmate, per year (http://www.november.org/razorwire/rzold/22/22006.html) to keep these people in Federal prison (Republicans: This could have been a tax savings of about $19,133,840,000).
The "war on drugs" has torn families apart, clogged up our prisons and courtrooms, created terrible governments at our door in South America (Don't even let me get started about Afghanistan), and created a vacuum of poverty and crime (that does suck!!) in many low-income areas all over our country. (Democrats: if we taxed drugs, you'd be able to try to fund rehab programs, after school programs, all kind of spending :))
I'll be honest. I've wrestled with this issue, as far as crystal meth is concerned (thought it might need to be excluded from legalization), but the current way isn't working.
One of my good friends has become addicted to that crap (don't ask me how, I have no idea), and the last time I saw him, he was a shell of the person he was before. He's gone to jail several times, had to hire attorneys, pay fines, and a bunch of other things. If he'd taken the money he's spent on fines and attorneys, he could have gone to rehab by now. If he wasn't constantly having to look for it, he'd probably still have his job. My friend is not a criminal, he's got an addiction.
There has to be a better way.
The Government is winning the war on drugs. They just didn't tell us, we are the targets
This is an issue worthy of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.
Friday, April 13, 2007
My "Mandatory" Imus Headline
News and Politics
Sorry, Everybody's got a "Imus" headlines now, and I kinda felt left out
But I think we've got bigger fish to fry.
I don't think the Republicans or Democrats are being intellectually honest with us about the war in Iraq, or Afghanistan. (In unison, YEAH!!)
We need to have a serious debate (not just here, but in the White House as well) about our foreign policy. (YEAH!)
Our government is cashing checks that our kids are going to have to pay for (with interest). We've got to figure out a way to stop that now. (YEAH!,,,,,, YEAH!!!)
I think we should eliminate the Postal Service and open the market up to regulated competition. (WHAT THE.&^%#!!).
I think I could convince a Postal carrier to support my position. But we need to solve the 1st three problems first. I'll blog about that another time (I'm supposed to leave you wanting for more, right?). Until then, lets discuss these issues until we can demand answers from our representatives.
Read my blog "info on tonight game" (www.myspace.com/thegblog). This whole thing is just another great example of the media (which I think is Republican biased by the way), chasing us off the government's sent. I agree, it is an issue, but there is a lot of things that aren't getting payed attention to right now. And everybody in the government is happy about that.