quote:

Originally posted by 46and2:
I want to see the end of Property Taxes and thus the beginning of truly owning Private Property (once paid off). I don't give a shit where else the equivalent money is taken from, just stop taking from Land and Homes and shield them from seizure in all but the most extreme circumstances.

what we have now is a lie, in effect, forever tethered to the gov't with a bill due each year. you, your kids, your grand kids, forever paying for property "paid off" ages ago. it needs to stop...

+Eleventybillion

No one owns property in the US except for the government. You pay rent forever and if you ever quit paying rent your property is confiscated. How is that ownership?

^^^^ This!

With regards to Trump's tax plan, I'm definitely opposed to the idea of taking more people off the tax rolls. I think that everyone should contribute to the cost of government. The more people there are contributing, the less people there will be who can take the attitude that "I don't care it's not my money." When you pay in your taxes, you have a stake in the system.

As it is, those considered "wealthy" by the government pay for more than their fair share. Trump's plan will only make it worse.

I still fail to see how anyone considers Trump a conservative.

And for those who think this is a brilliant move to beat the DEmocrats at their own game, just know this: The GOP will never outbid the Democrats on giving shit away. If we exempt 50% of the population from income taxes, they will go for 60%....and they'll promise the 60% that their benefits will increase because the 40% are putting in more money. The GOP will never ever win this game.

quote:

Originally posted by entropy:

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:

Our culture has decided, in these and other areas, that the costs of these inevitabl injuries is to be spread by the mechanism of insurance.

If your complaint is about the size of the awards, perhaps you should study the value of the damages awarded by juries, which are studied intensely for use in settlement discussions.

Umm...

No.

Im sorry, but your reply makes it apperar your profession has stood by innocent and acted as a simple mechanism.

Nope.


Please by all means feel free to insult pilots.

I used to participate in a Mooney Pilots e-mail group where I realized that the pilots wanted to play like lawyers and the lawyers wanted to play like pilots.

I don't view your comments as an insult to lawyers. It is undeniable that there are lawyers who shouldn't be.

I've become more acutely aware now of how little many understand of what lawyers do, are required to do, of what limitations and regulations apply to the practice of law, and how these all fit together in our culture.

What would you do about the impact of medical malpractice? Are you willing to say someone hurt by a doctor's negligence should not be entitled to relief for those damages? If so, are you willing to say that those victims are not entitled to assistance of a lawyer in making their claims?

There are only two things you can count on. 1. If you are injured and prevail, the justice system works great. 2. If you are injured and you do not prevail, or you prevail less than someone similarly injured, the game is rigged, the participants are disgusting slimeballs, crooked and worse.

It seems to me the effective approach is juries which evaluate claims and evidence, and come to rational decisions about those. Lawyers must advance their clients cause, not be "fair", and juries are there to neutralize the extremes. I've always found that juries do a pretty good job of sorting out bogus from real, reality from wishful dreams.

None of us has ever handled a medical mal case on either side, so most of our opinions are grounded in surmise, and whatever prejudices we carry, although leavened in some ways by education and experience in related controversies.

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
One thing you hear is always how the government is going to do things better for less.

Real conservatives would be telling us how government is going to do less, a lot less.

Trump is saying he's "gonna take care of everybody, it'll be fantastic." Really?

Yep.

http://www.nationalreview.com/...s-kevin-d-williamson

Kevin D. Williamson: I'm Not Sure I'm So Keen on Tax Cuts

Everyone from Rubio to Trump has proposed some kind of tax cut for the nation; it's a standard bit of Republican electioneering.

But is it the right proposal?

Every Republican tax-reform plan should be rooted in this reality: If you are going to have federal spending that is 21 percent of GDP, then you can have a.) taxes that are 21 percent of GDP; b.) deficits. There is no c.

If, on the other hand, you have a credible program for reducing spending to 17 or 18 percent of GDP, which is where taxes have been coming in, please do share it.

The problem with the Growth Fairy model of balancing budgets is that while economic growth would certainly reduce federal spending as a share of GDP if spending were kept constant, there is zero evidence that the government of these United States has the will or the inclination to enact serious spending controls when times are good (Uncork the champagne!) or when times are bad (Wicked austerity! We must have stimulus!).

It is standard conservative theory that tax cuts and spending cuts go hand in hand. But after decades of ever-rising spending, coupled with occasional tax cuts, I'm not so certain of that any longer.

I believe it was after Reagan that Republican theorists began justifying his model of tax-cuts-now-spending-cuts-later as the "starve the beast" theory of limiting government -- if we cut taxes, therefore cutting government's resources, we should, logically, force the government to adapt itself to living with fewer taxpayer dollars. Ergo, spending should be forced down by the practicalities of the situation -- either you start cutting spending, or else you start running up dangerous, Greece-level of debts.

The problem is that this country has always elected the "or else" part of this syllogism: We are racking up dangerous, Greece-levels of debts, and we're barely even talking about that any longer.

The problem has grown so immense that we've decided to declare it officially a Non-Problem. (It will decide to re-assert itself as a Really Big Problem in a short period of time.)

So I no longer believe in the "starve the beast" theory, because the "starve the beast" theory relies upon Americans understanding the mid-to-longer term trajectory of their spending choices, which they plainly do not.

Since Americans are not capable of understanding the mid-to-longer term trajectory of their spending choices, it seems to me the only way to impose budget discipline and spending rollback is to offer Americans an immediate, as opposed to future, confrontation with reality: that is, if Americans wish to have so much government, they should be forced to pay for the level of government they are choosing, and not defer that payment (as they apparently will choose, every single time) into the future, to be imposed upon their children.

But, instead, they must be forced to reckon with the level of government they are choosing now by paying the full freight and cost of that government now.

That is to say: I believe that rolling back spending is only possible when Americans are made to feel the costs of the government they're choosing, and that will only happen when they're forced to actually pay for it.

If Americans want 21% of GDP to be wasted on government, then we should make them pay 21% of their GDP to pay for this clumsy, murderous goliath.

And when they grow tired of paying 21% of GDP for this level of gold-plated, clay-footed government, perhaps they will see the sweet reason of reducing government expenditures down to, say, 19% of GDP, or, dare we dream, 18%.

I don't see any other way, frankly. And removing ever-more people from the tax rolls altogether -- making lower income people not even pay a small amount of tax -- accelerates the growth of government, as we create a larger and larger class for whom Big Government has tangible inducements and no visible drawbacks.

I've been thinking about this for some time. Am I a tax-hawk, or a spending-hawk? The typical conservative formulation is that we should be both at the same time, but that results in an ever-growing deficit that will, in fact, one day soon overwhelm us. (As the captain said in Titanic said about the ship's alleged unsinkability: "She is made of iron. She will sink, I guarantee it.")

So I suppose I'm more of a deficit hawk -- and a spending hawk.

I just don't see how the American people -- or the GOP, for that matter, but I should say they are only doing what their irresponsible citizen voters demand -- can be trusted to choose less government at some later date.

It does not help that even fairly well informed conservatives still blather about cutting foreign aid and waste and fraud, while willfully blinding themselves to the fact that the major drivers of spending are Social Security, Medicaid, and military spending -- three things they all insist not be cut, ever, no ways.

The non-military discretionary part of the budget is only one sixth of total spending, so even if you imposed draconian cuts on this section of the budget, slashing it by a full half of all spending (and you know the shrieking that would occur from that), you would only have cut the budget by 1/12th -- a bit more than the net interest we have to pay just on servicing the debt we've already acquired.

No one, including conservatives, seems willing to deal with this reality, preferring Fantasy Mathematics in which we cut some ethanol subsidies and some foreign aid to UNESCO and we're all ship-shape and square on matters budgetary, so it's time to force some reality into people's thinking.

Cutting taxes while raising spending teaches people that there is no connection between spending discipline and lower taxes. It teaches us we can have our cake and eat it too, so why not do both?

But of course we cannot have both -- or, at least, not for very long.

A reckoning is coming. We ought to start paying for the things we buy, and we're buying an awful lot of government, and conservatives are very nearly as hungry for big government as the liberals they decry.

The only way to bring reason to this madness is to make people square up their accounts every year -- for each year you want 21% of GDP spending on government, you pay 21% of GDP in taxes.

Then maybe we can start talking seriously about cutting government.

Thinking Twice: I guess this is really just a call with a Balanced Budget Amendment with forced tax hikes if spending goes up the previous year -- therefore strongly underlining in the public's mind the direct consequences of that Democrat goody-bag Congress just passed (with, no doubt, some moderate Republicans in support who want to prove they "can govern").

quote:

Originally posted by 46and2:
I want to see the end of Property Taxes and thus the beginning of truly owning Private Property (once paid off). I don't give a shit where else the equivalent money is taken from, just stop taking from Land and Homes and shield them from seizure in all but the most extreme circumstances.

what we have now is a lie, in effect, forever tethered to the gov't with a bill due each year. you, your kids, your grand kids, forever paying for property "paid off" ages ago. it needs to stop...

That's damned right on, right there.

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:
It does not help that even fairly well informed conservatives still blather about cutting foreign aid and waste and fraud, while willfully blinding themselves to the fact that the major drivers of spending are Social Security, Medicaid, and military spending -- three things they all insist not be cut, ever, no ways.

Excellent article again, chellim. Everyone wants cuts to happen to "someone else". Sequestration was a good start, and they are still trying very hard to eliminate those cuts. The big 3 need to be addressed, starting with Social Security...But we've been down that path before on this very forum many times. It's my money, I earned it, etc...

Apparently the Teamsters will not endorse Hillary, and want to meet with-- Donald Trump. They control a LOT of votes.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.co...t-with-donald-trump/

quote:

Originally posted by 46and2:
I want to see the end of Property Taxes and thus the beginning of truly owning Private Property (once paid off). I don't give a shit where else the equivalent money is taken from, just stop taking from Land and Homes and shield them from seizure in all but the most extreme circumstances.

what we have now is a lie, in effect, forever tethered to the gov't with a bill due each year. you, your kids, your grand kids, forever paying for property "paid off" ages ago. it needs to stop...

What does local and state tax on real property have to do with Trump's federal tax plan? Look to your local taxing authorities.

quote:

Originally posted by justjoe:
Apparently the Teamsters will not endorse Hillary, and want to meet with-- Donald Trump. They control a LOT of votes.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.co...t-with-donald-trump/

Yeah, they say they want to sit down with a bunch of Republican candidates. It'll be interesting to see if they're trying to build a bridge or just trying to extort more out of the Dems ahead of the upcoming elections (the timing would certainly be good for that).

Otherwise, I'm not sure how much a Teamsters endorsement would help a Republican candidate, either in the primaries or in the general election. Those who don't care what the Teamsters want simply won't care who the Teamsters endorse, and those who do care what the Teamsters want have been conditioned to vote for Democrats since birth.

Well they do field 1.4 million voters and with their families also voting pretty much in lock step it's quite a large number of votes. And union workers tend to vote as told by management.

quote:

Originally posted by cne3250:
What does local and state tax on real property have to do with Trump's federal tax plan? Look to your local taxing authorities.

only tangentially, in that when new Tax Plans are proposed by Trump or anyone I wish to see this travesty of a problem addressed and fixed once and for all, nationwide, from the top down, and though I hadn't even thought about this lately - the news of his plan reminded me.

quote:

Originally posted by Il Cattivo:
Really?

quote:

Originally posted by 46and2:

quote:

Originally posted by cne3250:
What does local and state tax on real property have to do with Trump's federal tax plan? Look to your local taxing authorities.

only tangentially, in that when new Tax Plans are proposed by Trump or anyone I wish to see this travesty of a problem addressed and fixed once and for all, nationwide, from the top down, and though I hadn't even thought about this lately - the news of his plan reminded me.

Drift.......

In the immortal words of Slick Willy: "I feel your pain". But please don't let Lois Lerner assess my property. If you feel you are paying too much property taxes, just bribe your county assessor.

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:

quote:

Originally posted by 46and2:
I want to see the end of Property Taxes and thus the beginning of truly owning Private Property (once paid off). I don't give a shit where else the equivalent money is taken from, just stop taking from Land and Homes and shield them from seizure in all but the most extreme circumstances.

what we have now is a lie, in effect, forever tethered to the gov't with a bill due each year. you, your kids, your grand kids, forever paying for property "paid off" ages ago. it needs to stop...

That's damned right on, right there.

What do you think pays for all of the stuff you utilize getting to your house? Stop signs, police, fire departments, roads, drainage, sidewalks, parks, schools, and on and on......the cities just need to stop wasting so much of it....

what if ( and I know this is a long shot)
What if he tells the general public to make an effort to get along with cops, and says , I am staying out of it.
then he makes little to no effort in the relations with foreign countries for 7 years.

but then he focus's on the national debt and reduces it by half in 7 years.

he makes almost no head way on a dozen areas of opportunity, but or national debt is on its way out the door.

It's interesting to watch the MSM try to bring down Trump, trying every which way they can think of, one thing after another. What they are trying now is: ignore him. Pay as little attention as possible, except to say that his campaign is fading. Proof of this is that he is not getting much media attention.

But this too will not work, is not working. His poll numbers remain strong, 25 to 28%. Who is fading? Jeb! Bush. Not fading, really, more dropping like a rock. Around 4% in the latest polls.

So now, having tried Carly with little success, the MSM is flogging Rubio, the weasel.

What the MSM does not realize is that they have completely destroyed whatever credibility they had, especially FOX.

quote:

Originally posted by jimmy123x:

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:

quote:

Originally posted by 46and2:
I want to see the end of Property Taxes and thus the beginning of truly owning Private Property (once paid off). I don't give a shit where else the equivalent money is taken from, just stop taking from Land and Homes and shield them from seizure in all but the most extreme circumstances.

what we have now is a lie, in effect, forever tethered to the gov't with a bill due each year. you, your kids, your grand kids, forever paying for property "paid off" ages ago. it needs to stop...

That's damned right on, right there.

What do you think pays for all of the stuff you utilize getting to your house? Stop signs, police, fire departments, roads, drainage, sidewalks, parks, schools, and on and on......the cities just need to stop wasting so much of it....

you're missing the central point, which (in this specific case) is not the amount of taxes or excessive waste but specifically the source of said taxes and how taxing land and homes essentially makes it impossible to ever really own your property free and clear, it makes the entire notion of property and home ownership a farce, a misnomer at best; instead we have a perpetual lease with a variable rate and no real say in the matter (in addition to a mortgage or inheritance or the like), and it needs to stop. it shouldn't even be legal.

in any case, back to Trump...

Trump has License to Carry!

Donald Trump continues to court Second Amendment supporters in the wake of last week’s deadly shooting in Oregon, suggesting the teachers at Umpqua Community College should have been armed — just like he is.

“Let me tell you, if you had a couple teachers with guns in that room, you would have been a hell of a lot better off,” Trump said at a rally in Franklin, Tenn., on Saturday. “This is about self-defense, plain and simple.”

“In fact, I have a license to carry in New York — can you believe that? Nobody knows that,” Trump continued. “Somebody attacks me, they’re gonna be shocked.”

After the event, the Republican frontrunner told reporters that he is a member of the National Rifle Association, and had consulted the group in developing his gun policy.

Trump also criticized former Florida governor Jeb Bush’s remarks about the Oregon shooting.

“He used the words ‘stuff happens,’ and I thought it was a very bad phrase to use,” Trump said, according to the Washington Post. “I actually was watching that and thought, ‘Wow, how does he use that phrase?’”

Authorities say the 26-year-old shooter, Christopher Sean Harper-Mercer, brought at least six guns and five ammunition magazines to the Roseburg, Ore., campus, where he shot and killed nine people and wounded seven others.

A day after the massacre, the real estate mogul said such killings are always going to happen because mentally ill people will “slip through the cracks” regardless of the law.

“This isn’t a gun problem; this is a mental problem,” Trump told CNN. “It’s not a question of the laws; it’s really the people.”

On Sunday, Trump reiterated that argument.

“Guns, no guns — it doesn’t matter,” Trump said on NBC’s “Meet The Press” Sunday. “You have people that are mentally ill. And they’re gonna come through the cracks. And they’re going to do things that people will not even believe are possible.”

“No matter what you do, you will have problems,” Trump said on ABC’s “This Week With George Stephanopoulos.” “And that’s the way the world goes.”

Trump added: “The gun laws have nothing to do with this. This isn’t guns; this is about really mental illness. And I feel very strongly about it. And again [the] politically correct [say], ‘Oh, we’re gonna solve the problem, there’ll be no problem, etc., etc.’ You’re always going to have difficulties, no matter how tight you run it. Even if you had great education having to do with mental illness. You educate the community — still, you’re going to have people that slip through the cracks. And these people are more than slipping through the cracks; these people want to slip through the cracks. So you’re going to have problems. It’s unfortunate.”

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie called for lawmakers to “get tougher on the mental health issues.”

“Let’s do some tough things on mental health,” Christie said on “This Week.” “Let’s make involuntary commitment of people who speak violently easier for doctors. I’ve heard doctors in my state say, ‘The laws are so difficult and murky.’ Let’s work on those kinds of things. I think that makes sense.”

Christie added: “Let’s remember something else: In many of the places around this country where they have the toughest gun laws, they have the highest violent crime rates. And we focus on a tragedy like this. It’s an awful tragedy. It’s terrible. But it is the exception to violence in America.”

From Yahoo.com

quote:

“Let’s make involuntary commitment of people who speak violently easier for doctors.

A gold mine for the ACLU.