Two republicans look at a pipeline running from the Capitol Building to the Department of Homeland Security. Republican: We can shut this one down because there's no oil in it.
They say elephants never forget, but these ones seem to never learn. OTOH, there is a good bit of that “Homeland Security” dept. that could get sequestered out of existence and it certainly wouldn’t be missed.
Extortion, pure and simple. Do as we say or national security suffers. And if more illegals get across the border because of what we’ve done, or anything else bad happens as a result, we can blame you for that too!It reminds me of the way they made sure the IRS can’t enforce the law so that even less money comes in, so their PACs could break the law with impunity, and they could blame the Democrats for deficits and shortfalls.To quote the supposed remark of Cornelius Vanderbilt: “The public be damned! I work for my stockholders!” And we all know who the stockholders of the GOP are. P.S. Vanderbilt probably did not say it, at least not in that way. But he did suggest that his only consideration in running his railroads was to make money. “Railroads are not run for the public benefit, but to pay. Incidentally, we may benefit humanity, but the aim is to earn a dividend,” he said in another place. And this is as it should be. Corporations exist to earn money for stockholders. Anything they do that, at least in the long run, is not intended to make money for the stockholders, is embezzlement. If you give a lift to someone in your car, it is not your car that is being charitable. If a corporation gives away money, it is either stealing money from its stockholders, or has judged the giving to be an investment of some kind. Only human beings can be generous. But I ramble …
@Doughfoot – Yes!!! You do Ramble!!!! OK, we get it. You don’t like corporations. But going back to your original statement about Extortion – Get off it. Obama (Who seems to think himself emperor, lately) was selectively enforcing the laws with homeland security which was a concern of the founding fathers. The House and Senate have very few levers to pull in order to make him do his job fairly and evenly. This is one of their Powers to check his and they are using it appropriately.
As for the IRS – They have been acting like a rogue state for years. It’s high time they be exposed to the light of day and forced to account for some of their approaches. If everyone had to pay into the IRS and was subject to the audits and their kangaroo courts there would be an uproar. But since only about 50% of us actually have to deal with them it goes relatively unnoticed. We need to eliminate that nasty bit of government and go to a simple sales tax or VAT and get the government out of our books.
@sizeofpea – Now who’s nerve got struck :) My comments seem to have sent you into orbit. But let’s parse your diatribe and look for common ground or at least make sure we aren’t talking past each other.
I find the vilification of corporations because they don’t answer to the public tiresome. Corporations are the ownership of capital and whether or not they serve some greater public good is irrelevant. The alternative would be limited liability S corporations or partnerships which aren’t any better but it sure sounds good to the anti-corporation zealots. It certainly was irrelevant to doughfoot’s premise.
I don’t want congress to compromise. King Barry has refused to enforce the laws evenly (He is picking and choosing the ones he likes) so congress has legitimately used their power to check his power to enforce. I’m all for it. The executive branch has become far too powerful as it is and any check of their power is a good one as far as I see it. But Doughfoot called it extortion as though congress was doing something illegal or against the best interest of the nation. It looks to me like they are doing exactly what is best for the nation – Go Congress!!!
The Department of Homeland security was a poorly crafted poorly implemented department that was created in haste to an overblown sense of threat from terrorists. I for one will be glad to see that rabid dog defanged so we can all go back to enjoying our freedoms and our liberties. The terrorists didn’t take away my freedom – Presidents Bush and Obama did.
You liked Doughfoot’s comment about the IRS – go figure. The very idea of the government being allowed to snoop and search through our financials is a horrible abridgement of our freedoms. We need a tax system that is based on transactions that are out in the open so that the Government isn’t tempted to pick and choose who gets to pay (So much for equal protection under the law). And of course it would be a tax shift because 50% of our citizens aren’t paying anything at all.
I guess in your world we need a strong parental government that is paid for by somebody else. I want a limited government that watches for scope creep and doesn’t spend it’s time trying to figure out how to make up for the perceived shortcomings in capitalism.
I don’t want the Republicans OR the Democrats to abuse the tax code. That’s why I advocate for a very simple straight forward tax – to which I will happily apply my transactions as long as you and your liberal lot will do the same.
You created a lot of strawmen up there but they don’t amount to much.
@feverjr – You and I will disagree on that subject. Is it your argument that any group that lobbies for the fettering and limitation of government powers is working against social welfare?
Would you argue that Martin Luther King Jr. should not have been considered interested in Social welfare because he and his freedom riders were trying to constrain the laws and regulations of Alabama? I don’t think so.
Not all government rules, regulations and laws are just. Those of us who lobby against them are not working against social welfare. We just see Social welfare differently then you. For instance – You and I see lowering the tax burden on citizens in two different lights.
I see it as putting more money back in the pocket of the man (or woman) who earns it so that they can spend that money on Improving their community, sending their kids to college (without government aid), improving their standard of living etc.
You would see it as depriving the government of much needed funds that could be distributed to the rest of society.
I’m sure Lois Lerner had a similar mind set to yours. She thought she was keeping groups from taking from the Government. Those groups saw themselves as keeping her from taking from them.
@Night-gaunt49: First) Check the Federal Register and you will find Millions of pages of rules and regulations imposed on corporations. Most Corporations have large legal divisions to deal with all the Federal, State, and Local laws and regulations imposed on them (That speaks to your fallacy of unregulated).
Second) The Government does a very good job of managing or eliminating monopolies. That isn’t going to change any time soon; nor should it.
Third) If you don’t like large corporations bringing us superior goods at lower prices – Then don’t shop at Amazon, Walmart, Target, Kroger, etc. etc. As for me – I will continue to shop at the companies that maximize the buying power of my meager ducats and at the same time earn me the highest return on my investment when I am a shareholder. What’s not to like?
The elimination of jobs due to efficiency improvements is an unfortunate side effect but the alternative is for the rest of us to pay higher costs to support inefficient industries. Back in the 80’s, US steel was demanding protectionism for their industry because they would otherwise have to lay off workers. They got what they wanted and all the rest of us had to pay higher prices for cars, bulldozers, planes, bikes, etc. An economist figured out it would be cheaper to give those unemployed steel workers $40,000 a year (big money back then) rather then put a hidden tax on the rest of America.
@SizeofPea – Wow – You really are angry today (and nasty). I am well aware of Walmart’s proclivities for squeezing their suppliers but I think you will find (if you do some comparison shopping as I have) that you can find comparable goods from Walmart and your local retail stores and almost always Walmart offers a better price. And that works when you are buying staples: Paper towels, Flour, Sugar, Onion soup mix, etc. etc.I won’t shop at Walmart for goods where quality matters such as: Fresh produce, Meats (I raise my own), Bakery goods (I bake my own mostly) etc.
And for all your protestations over my warm breath – I stand by my claims that many corporations ultimately benefit the consumer because we get the same goods and services at a lower price and often with more selection. Case in Point – Amazon can provide me any textbook, video, CD, Keurig K-cup, etc. in two days and they can keep the price low because they have figured out how to eliminate many of the people in the process that added cost.
In retrospect – I should have left Walmart out of the mix because it does engender a lot of anger in groups that would like to see Main street brought back to it’s former glory but it is a good example of a corporation that has raised cost savings and efficiency to an art form. I don’t really shop there much but when I do; I’m amazed at how organized they are.
@sizeofpea – As for the Income tax: I acknowledge that it was approved by an amendment. I just think it has been implemented in an unjust way as apparently you do since you are upset that your RV gets taxed higher then a vacation home.
I think you and I can both agree that both parties are guilty of using the tax code to gift their constituents. That’s why it has burgeoned to over 10000 pages. All of that complexity comes with an enormous cost to society as it fuels an enormous accounting and legal industry for people who don’t want to get askance of the law.
More then a decade ago; a wise economist proposed the same thing I discussed. Do away with the income tax and replace it with VAT or sales tax. But he went on to say – If you want to protect the poor from the burdens of this tax then have the IRS deed back $10K or $20K or whatever the poverty limit is to each citizen (effectively nullifying the tax on those who fall below the poverty line).
This could be done in such a way that it would eliminate scores of accountants, tax lawyers, IRS agents, and administrative judges and still protect the poor for whom you have expressed a concern.
So why hasn’t this gone anywhere? Because both Political parties don’t want to lose the power the tax code affords them to gift their benefactors. Isn’t that a hoot. The very tax that was put in place to level the playing field for rich and poor alike has been corrupted into a tax on the middle class to protect the rich and the poor.
You’re trying to figure out how you can make the system more fair for you. I’m trying to figure out how to make the system more fair for everyone.
I never saw Jefferson’s letter and I’ld like a cite if you have it. Given his overall attitudes it’s not entirely out of the realm of what he might propose but it wasn’t in line with what the Federalist want. And you can damn well bet they never expected to be forced to open their books to the government on a regular basis. That isn’t the freedom they envisioned.
@Sizeofpea – I think you are muddling what I said but if I was unclear; then let me clarify. When I said corporations can provide superior products at lower prices I wasn’t talking only about Walmart.
I went on to say that when it comes to staples I have been able to comparison shop and find Walmart has the lowest prices and that I wouldn’t buy produce meats and bakery items there. I also used the anecdote of Amazon which allows me access to a much larger selection then any brick and mortar store for low prices.
I haven’t had your experience with their auto department but I’ll even take your word on it.
I’m still not changing my story – I don’t shop there much but I have comparison shopped. The reason I don’t shop much at Walmart isn’t out of any sense of altruism but because I don’t like waiting in long lines and I’m willing to pay a little more to wait less.
I guess that’s a no on the cite but that’s ok. I’ll look around. The Founding Fathers said a lot of things and bandied about a lot of ideas. Not all of them were implemented and not all of them were good ideas. They were inventing a new form of Government – The fact that you found a quote that supports your idea does not mean the founding fathers were in favor of wealth transfer the way you seem to believe.
Above all else they valued Freedom, Liberty, Self Reliance, Low Taxes (Hell the Colonists dumped tea for a miniscule tax).
Alexander the Good Enough about 9 years ago
They say elephants never forget, but these ones seem to never learn. OTOH, there is a good bit of that “Homeland Security” dept. that could get sequestered out of existence and it certainly wouldn’t be missed.
ConserveGov about 9 years ago
Ya ILLEGAL Decrees by King Barry are being stopped.What’s the problem?
Dtroutma about 9 years ago
Oh that pipelines been a lot bigger, and high pressure, directly into contractors’ pockets.
Doughfoot about 9 years ago
Extortion, pure and simple. Do as we say or national security suffers. And if more illegals get across the border because of what we’ve done, or anything else bad happens as a result, we can blame you for that too!It reminds me of the way they made sure the IRS can’t enforce the law so that even less money comes in, so their PACs could break the law with impunity, and they could blame the Democrats for deficits and shortfalls.To quote the supposed remark of Cornelius Vanderbilt: “The public be damned! I work for my stockholders!” And we all know who the stockholders of the GOP are. P.S. Vanderbilt probably did not say it, at least not in that way. But he did suggest that his only consideration in running his railroads was to make money. “Railroads are not run for the public benefit, but to pay. Incidentally, we may benefit humanity, but the aim is to earn a dividend,” he said in another place. And this is as it should be. Corporations exist to earn money for stockholders. Anything they do that, at least in the long run, is not intended to make money for the stockholders, is embezzlement. If you give a lift to someone in your car, it is not your car that is being charitable. If a corporation gives away money, it is either stealing money from its stockholders, or has judged the giving to be an investment of some kind. Only human beings can be generous. But I ramble …
Mephistopheles about 9 years ago
@Doughfoot – Yes!!! You do Ramble!!!! OK, we get it. You don’t like corporations. But going back to your original statement about Extortion – Get off it. Obama (Who seems to think himself emperor, lately) was selectively enforcing the laws with homeland security which was a concern of the founding fathers. The House and Senate have very few levers to pull in order to make him do his job fairly and evenly. This is one of their Powers to check his and they are using it appropriately.
As for the IRS – They have been acting like a rogue state for years. It’s high time they be exposed to the light of day and forced to account for some of their approaches. If everyone had to pay into the IRS and was subject to the audits and their kangaroo courts there would be an uproar. But since only about 50% of us actually have to deal with them it goes relatively unnoticed. We need to eliminate that nasty bit of government and go to a simple sales tax or VAT and get the government out of our books.
jones.knik about 9 years ago
They can shut down DHS for all I care.
Mephistopheles about 9 years ago
@sizeofpea – Now who’s nerve got struck :) My comments seem to have sent you into orbit. But let’s parse your diatribe and look for common ground or at least make sure we aren’t talking past each other.
I find the vilification of corporations because they don’t answer to the public tiresome. Corporations are the ownership of capital and whether or not they serve some greater public good is irrelevant. The alternative would be limited liability S corporations or partnerships which aren’t any better but it sure sounds good to the anti-corporation zealots. It certainly was irrelevant to doughfoot’s premise.
I don’t want congress to compromise. King Barry has refused to enforce the laws evenly (He is picking and choosing the ones he likes) so congress has legitimately used their power to check his power to enforce. I’m all for it. The executive branch has become far too powerful as it is and any check of their power is a good one as far as I see it. But Doughfoot called it extortion as though congress was doing something illegal or against the best interest of the nation. It looks to me like they are doing exactly what is best for the nation – Go Congress!!!
The Department of Homeland security was a poorly crafted poorly implemented department that was created in haste to an overblown sense of threat from terrorists. I for one will be glad to see that rabid dog defanged so we can all go back to enjoying our freedoms and our liberties. The terrorists didn’t take away my freedom – Presidents Bush and Obama did.
You liked Doughfoot’s comment about the IRS – go figure. The very idea of the government being allowed to snoop and search through our financials is a horrible abridgement of our freedoms. We need a tax system that is based on transactions that are out in the open so that the Government isn’t tempted to pick and choose who gets to pay (So much for equal protection under the law). And of course it would be a tax shift because 50% of our citizens aren’t paying anything at all.
I guess in your world we need a strong parental government that is paid for by somebody else. I want a limited government that watches for scope creep and doesn’t spend it’s time trying to figure out how to make up for the perceived shortcomings in capitalism.
I don’t want the Republicans OR the Democrats to abuse the tax code. That’s why I advocate for a very simple straight forward tax – to which I will happily apply my transactions as long as you and your liberal lot will do the same.
You created a lot of strawmen up there but they don’t amount to much.
Mephistopheles about 9 years ago
@feverjr – You and I will disagree on that subject. Is it your argument that any group that lobbies for the fettering and limitation of government powers is working against social welfare?
Would you argue that Martin Luther King Jr. should not have been considered interested in Social welfare because he and his freedom riders were trying to constrain the laws and regulations of Alabama? I don’t think so.
Not all government rules, regulations and laws are just. Those of us who lobby against them are not working against social welfare. We just see Social welfare differently then you. For instance – You and I see lowering the tax burden on citizens in two different lights.
I see it as putting more money back in the pocket of the man (or woman) who earns it so that they can spend that money on Improving their community, sending their kids to college (without government aid), improving their standard of living etc.
You would see it as depriving the government of much needed funds that could be distributed to the rest of society.
I’m sure Lois Lerner had a similar mind set to yours. She thought she was keeping groups from taking from the Government. Those groups saw themselves as keeping her from taking from them.
Mephistopheles about 9 years ago
@Night-gaunt49: First) Check the Federal Register and you will find Millions of pages of rules and regulations imposed on corporations. Most Corporations have large legal divisions to deal with all the Federal, State, and Local laws and regulations imposed on them (That speaks to your fallacy of unregulated).
Second) The Government does a very good job of managing or eliminating monopolies. That isn’t going to change any time soon; nor should it.
Third) If you don’t like large corporations bringing us superior goods at lower prices – Then don’t shop at Amazon, Walmart, Target, Kroger, etc. etc. As for me – I will continue to shop at the companies that maximize the buying power of my meager ducats and at the same time earn me the highest return on my investment when I am a shareholder. What’s not to like?
The elimination of jobs due to efficiency improvements is an unfortunate side effect but the alternative is for the rest of us to pay higher costs to support inefficient industries. Back in the 80’s, US steel was demanding protectionism for their industry because they would otherwise have to lay off workers. They got what they wanted and all the rest of us had to pay higher prices for cars, bulldozers, planes, bikes, etc. An economist figured out it would be cheaper to give those unemployed steel workers $40,000 a year (big money back then) rather then put a hidden tax on the rest of America.
oneoldhat about 9 years ago
why do the democrats want to shut down homeland security ?
Mephistopheles about 9 years ago
@SizeofPea – Wow – You really are angry today (and nasty). I am well aware of Walmart’s proclivities for squeezing their suppliers but I think you will find (if you do some comparison shopping as I have) that you can find comparable goods from Walmart and your local retail stores and almost always Walmart offers a better price. And that works when you are buying staples: Paper towels, Flour, Sugar, Onion soup mix, etc. etc.I won’t shop at Walmart for goods where quality matters such as: Fresh produce, Meats (I raise my own), Bakery goods (I bake my own mostly) etc.
And for all your protestations over my warm breath – I stand by my claims that many corporations ultimately benefit the consumer because we get the same goods and services at a lower price and often with more selection. Case in Point – Amazon can provide me any textbook, video, CD, Keurig K-cup, etc. in two days and they can keep the price low because they have figured out how to eliminate many of the people in the process that added cost.
In retrospect – I should have left Walmart out of the mix because it does engender a lot of anger in groups that would like to see Main street brought back to it’s former glory but it is a good example of a corporation that has raised cost savings and efficiency to an art form. I don’t really shop there much but when I do; I’m amazed at how organized they are.
Mephistopheles about 9 years ago
@sizeofpea – As for the Income tax: I acknowledge that it was approved by an amendment. I just think it has been implemented in an unjust way as apparently you do since you are upset that your RV gets taxed higher then a vacation home.
I think you and I can both agree that both parties are guilty of using the tax code to gift their constituents. That’s why it has burgeoned to over 10000 pages. All of that complexity comes with an enormous cost to society as it fuels an enormous accounting and legal industry for people who don’t want to get askance of the law.
More then a decade ago; a wise economist proposed the same thing I discussed. Do away with the income tax and replace it with VAT or sales tax. But he went on to say – If you want to protect the poor from the burdens of this tax then have the IRS deed back $10K or $20K or whatever the poverty limit is to each citizen (effectively nullifying the tax on those who fall below the poverty line).
This could be done in such a way that it would eliminate scores of accountants, tax lawyers, IRS agents, and administrative judges and still protect the poor for whom you have expressed a concern.
So why hasn’t this gone anywhere? Because both Political parties don’t want to lose the power the tax code affords them to gift their benefactors. Isn’t that a hoot. The very tax that was put in place to level the playing field for rich and poor alike has been corrupted into a tax on the middle class to protect the rich and the poor.
You’re trying to figure out how you can make the system more fair for you. I’m trying to figure out how to make the system more fair for everyone.
I never saw Jefferson’s letter and I’ld like a cite if you have it. Given his overall attitudes it’s not entirely out of the realm of what he might propose but it wasn’t in line with what the Federalist want. And you can damn well bet they never expected to be forced to open their books to the government on a regular basis. That isn’t the freedom they envisioned.
Mephistopheles about 9 years ago
@Sizeofpea – I think you are muddling what I said but if I was unclear; then let me clarify. When I said corporations can provide superior products at lower prices I wasn’t talking only about Walmart.
I went on to say that when it comes to staples I have been able to comparison shop and find Walmart has the lowest prices and that I wouldn’t buy produce meats and bakery items there. I also used the anecdote of Amazon which allows me access to a much larger selection then any brick and mortar store for low prices.
I haven’t had your experience with their auto department but I’ll even take your word on it.
I’m still not changing my story – I don’t shop there much but I have comparison shopped. The reason I don’t shop much at Walmart isn’t out of any sense of altruism but because I don’t like waiting in long lines and I’m willing to pay a little more to wait less.
I guess that’s a no on the cite but that’s ok. I’ll look around. The Founding Fathers said a lot of things and bandied about a lot of ideas. Not all of them were implemented and not all of them were good ideas. They were inventing a new form of Government – The fact that you found a quote that supports your idea does not mean the founding fathers were in favor of wealth transfer the way you seem to believe.
Above all else they valued Freedom, Liberty, Self Reliance, Low Taxes (Hell the Colonists dumped tea for a miniscule tax).