On Federal Taxation in the United States

Jul 19, 2014 19:02:12 GMT pjohns1873 said:

I would certainly hope that any future war against Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, and/or Venezuela would not be fought on America's "home turf."  (Thankfully, America has not had to fight on American soil for almost 150 years now; and it has not had to fight another nation on America's soil for about 200 years.  I would prefer to keep it that way.) 

Actually, I do not have a "smart phone"--just a 1990s-style flip phone--and I did not have a smart phone during my working lifetime (which concluded in 2005).  I am not really sure why that should be considered a modern necessity. 

Yes, I would very much like to see the Sixteenth Amendment repealed (which, in the wake of WWI, was imposed to collect revenue through an income tax).  (Oh, in 1914--which I mentioned previously--the top marginal rate was a mere one percent.  That was reserved for the very wealthiest Americans--those earning over $500,000 per year--which was quite a lot of money 100 years ago.)    

Oh, here is a link to an article on the "surge" in Iraq, and the effect of the so-called "Anbar Awakening":  www.e-ir.info/2014/07/12/coalition-victory-in-iraq-as-a-result-of-the-surge-and-anbar-awakening/

Lacking the US provocation by starting a war there will be no war with Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, and/or Venezuela as none of these countries have any desire to go to war against the United States.

I've had a smart phone but it's not in service right now but we both have computers with ISP's we pay for because internet access is vital in today's US economy for jobs and other necessities and even the poor need them IMO. But I won't go into that really because that's just my opinion as to what might be considered a necessary expenditure for today's working age Americans. You might also agree that a computer is required because they are certainly necessary for someone to advance their education even in elementary and secondary education levels and an absolute must for college. The real point I try to make it that there are experts that determine what "poverty" is in the United States and I'm not qualified to dispute them. I've also known many that have collected welfare assistance and they unquestionably needed it because even I often helped them out financially because government assistance wasn't nearly enough. Sometimes at the end of the month they just couldn't afford to pay the rent and they did not  "waste" money on anything.

As I've noted the federal expenditures, and in fact the expenditures of individuals, were not nearly as great in 1914 as they are today. Our DOD spending alone, for example, has increased by about 50-times what it was after inflation is accounted for. With DOD spending being the largest single discretionary expenditure we can't expect the same tax revenue sources to provide 50-times more revenue assuming all other expenditures also increased 50-fold.

Of note the US had income taxes before the 16th Amendment and the 16th Amendment merely clarified the Constitutionality of this form of taxation. The income tax is not inherently a "bad" tax as my proposal is a very fair form of taxation. The revenue still needs to be raised and I would suggest we'd be worse off with other forms of taxation, such as tariffs, that are highly regressive.

It is still my belief that the most responsible and pragmatic means of reducing government expenditures is to address the problems that necessitate the expenditures. As I've repeatedly mentioned if we want to reduce the necessity for welfare assistance (both public and private) then the only responsible and pragmatic way is to reduce the poverty that drives the necessity for the spending. The spending isn't the problem, the poverty is the problem.

As for your source on the reduction of violence in Iraq at the end of 2007 it states, "Thus the point could be made that the surge had an indirect effect on reducing the levels of violence by forcing the Mahdi Army’s decline through the influx of troops." In fact that point couldn't be made because the actual troop strength didn't significantly increase until 2008 after al-Sadr had unilaterally declared a cease-fire. We can also note that it was the Mahdi Army that was primarily responsible for US military deaths in Iraq and not the Sunni militias. They were also the only opposing military force that actually "identified" themselves in accord with the "customs of war" as they wore distinctive clothing as I recall and carried their arms openly while on military operations. No, the "Surge" did not intimidate al-Sadr at all but the control of government being handed to the corrupt Shi'ite politicians by the US military did have an influence on al-Sadr's decision to initiate a ceasefire.

Al-Sadr, while wanting the US military out of Iraq, also wanted a tyrannical Shi'ite government to suppress the Sunnis and by stopping military operations against the US military he figured out correctly that it would expedite the withdrawal of the US military from Iraq so that the Shi'ite government could assume total power. His continued fighting against the US military was actually resulting in the US staying in Iraq and that was juxtaposed to his ultimate goals. As we can tell from events in Iraq today al-Sadr's strategy worked because it got the US out of Iraq and also lead to the tyrannical control of the Sunnis by the Shi'ite government installed by the US military in Iraq. In short by stopping actual military operations al-Sadr kicked the US military's ass and won in Iraq. He defeated us intellectually by a strategic act of stopping military operations in 2007.

Today the Shi'ite politicians in Iraq are "playing Americans like a fool" as they call upon us to help support their tyrannical oppression of the Sunnis and many, including Obama, are falling for it. How stupid are we really?

Jul 20, 2014 16:49:24 GMT pjohns1873 said:

I quoted a neutral source--not something from the rightmost fringe--to the effect that the surge "had an indirect effect upon reducing the levels of violence" in Iraq; but you reject it.

Your assertion that only American "provocation" could result in war between the US and either China, Russia, North Korea, Iran, and/or Venezuela seems to imply a most jaundiced view of America; it is a view of America the Provocateur, rather than America the Defender of Freedom.  According to this view, America is essentially evil, whereas these other countries--including even Vladimir Putin's Russia and Kim Jong-un's North Korea--are relatively pristine.   

As I have noted previously, I would not wish to reduce our federal revenues to 9.5 billion dollars (the inflation-adjusted amount, according to your previous indication, of what the US federal government received in revenues in 2014).  And I have also indicated that your own proposal for taxation seems reasonable enough to me. 

Who are these "experts" to whom you refer, who determine what constitutes "poverty"? What are their credentials? And are they mere sociologists? 

My assertion is that neither the al-Sadr's militias or the Sunni militias were intimidated one iota by the scheduled increase of US forces by 30,000 troops that effectively occurred in 2008. The Viet Cong and NVA weren't intimidated with the "Surge" to a total of over 500,000 US troops in Vietnam so why would anyone think that a surge of 30,000 troops would intimidate the Shi'a or Sunni militias into a cease fire? It was the decisions by the two different militia groups that reduced the violence and not the additional military force of a measly 30,000 US soldiers.

As Adam Barr, an unknown author, states the reduction in violence merely allowed the US to have an exit strategy and nothing more because the damage done by the US invasion was really irreversable and that's what we're seeing today.

A nation that invades other countries that don't threaten it (excluding the nuclear threat of the cold war no nation has threatened the US since WW II) and that supports tyrannical governments is inherently evil. We've sponsored terrorist organizations, fueled revolutions and military coups, and committed artrocities around the world during my lifetime. Our "Ideals" are the best in the world by our disregard for those same ideals has lead the United States down a path of world tyranny.    

I'm not sure who the "experts" are but both Republicans and Democrats in Congress agree with their findings. For example both Democrats and Republicans in Congress agree with the income/family size criteria established to receive SNAP benefits that the "experts" basically established. For example last year when the House GOP legislation "slashed" the funding for SNAP it didn't touch the income criteria for the program. It addressed "work" requirements and other factors that were completely unrelated to the "income/family size" criteria for the SNAP program.

www.nytimes.com/2013/09/20/us/politics/house-passes-bill-cutting-40-billion-from-food-stamps.html?_r=0

I do appreciate your endorsement for my tax proposal and I'm still working on creating a booket on it. Not an easy task as I'm sure you're aware. Doing the research was one thing but properly documenting in again is something else again. I'll keep plugging away at it because it's not an issue I see going away. The key point I've tried to make recently is that you can't have fair tax reform that would balance the US budget with no one's rates increasing. It's impossible to do because some have been treated so favorably for so long that their rates were way below what they should have been paying all along.

I also believe that there are pragmatic and responsible ways of reducing government spending without throwing America's poor under the bus.

Jul 22, 2014 1:21:08 GMT pjohns1873 said:

The reason that the Viet Cong were not "intimidated" in Vietnam is the fact that they were fighting a guerrilla war (which is precisely what some diehard Southerners advocated after Appomattox Courthose in April 1865; but which Gen. Robert E. Lee--and even Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest--counseled against). 

Well, at least you admit that you consider the US government to be "inherently evil," despite our country's stated ideals. 

And you also admit that you are "not sure who the 'experts' are" who determine what constitutes poverty.

The Iraqi militias were fighting a guerrilla war just like the Viet Cong. No difference whatsoever.

The politicians that control our our government authorize evil but not the nation itself is based upon an idealogy that opposes evil.

No, but the Republicans and Democrats both believe them. The ecominists that estabish the criteria of poverty in the United States are one of the few things that both major parties agree with. I would have to find an expert that disagrees with them but don't know of any that do.  

Jul 22, 2014 17:44:39 GMT pjohns1873 said:

Although the war in Iraq did not really resemble WWII, I also do not believe it was a mere clone of the Vietnam War.

To assert that America's politicians generally "authorize evil" is to endorse a view of America's post-WWII conflicts--all of them--with which I fundamentally disagree.

And given how many Republocan politicians have bemoaned President Obama's tremendous expansion of food stamps (i.e. SNAP benefits and EBT cards), I think it would be grossly unfair to assert that Republicans in general agree with this administration;s definition of "poverty." 

Iraq was not identical to the Vietnam war but it was a guerrilla war of the militias against a formal military force. It did not wage strength against strength but instead it was the strength of the militias waging war against the weakness of the US military. No matter how "strong" the US military was overall it didn't reduce the weaknesses. Small patrols were still sent out and those patrols were still vulnerable to attack regardless of overall troop strength in Iraq. A 10 man platoon is still a 10 man platoon regardless of whether the overall troop strength is 90,000 or 120,000 and it's the platoon that is at risk.

Somewhere between 6 million and perhaps 10 million innocent people have died because of military and paramilitary conflicts that the US has been involved in since WW II. None of those conflicts were the result of any nation attacking the United States and it cannot be claimed that any were wars in self-defense of our nation. That many innocent dead people cannot be rationalized away. For example, as bad a Saddam was in Iraq the US invasion lead to at least 10-times as many innocent people dying in Iraq than the number of innocent people that died under the tyranny of Saddam. The US military didn't directly murder most of them but the chaos created by the US invasion did.

President Obama didn't expand SNAP. The criteria for SNAP remained unchanged from the Bush Adminstration. The number of people thrown into poverty by the 2008 Recession resulted in the number of people collecting SNAP quadrupling and that had nothing whatsoever to do with President Obama.  

Jul 23, 2014 23:25:47 GMT pjohns1873 said:

There is an interesting article in the Washington Examiner, from about two years ago, cataloguing the part played by both the Obama administration and--even before that--the George W. Bush administration, in expanding the food-stamp program.

Although the article does note that "[t]he weak economy has played a role in the increase of food stamp spending," it continues:   "but that's only part of the story."  

Here is what it goes on to say:

Here is the link:  washingtonexaminer.com/the-great-bush-obama-food-stamp-expansion/article/2500895

Yes, sometimes (sadly) "innocent people" die in the "chaos" of war. 

No, Iraq, in 2003, was not actively "attacking" the US. But our intelligence--whether rightly or wrongly--seemed to indicate that Saddam was busily manufacturing WMD with which he could attack us.  So I believe that this war was, indeed, launched as a matter of (perceived) self-defense. 

All of the revisions to the different Farm Bills make sense. It shouldn't be hard to enroll in SNAP. If you need the assistance you shouldn't have to jump through a lot of government red tape. Immigrants working at poverty level wages get just as hungry as US citizens and unskilled immigrant workers also pay more in taxes than they receive in benefits just like Americans. The "assets" test is down right stupid in many respects. A $2,000 car is a piece of junk that requires a lot of repairs just to keep running. A long term unemployed person is very often someone that had an above average income, did own a house (with principle), and now is struggling just to avoid foreclosure. Should they really be forced out of their home just so they can eat? The 2008 Recession has already destroyed millions of people's retirements by forcing then to make early withdrawals from their retirement accounts that are financially penalized and heavily taxed leaving them with nothing but Social Security for their old age. Adjustments to the SNAP benefits to reflect changing economic times are both pragmatic and necessary.

And please note that Obama wasn't really responsible for any of these changes, most of which came before him. That is especially true related to state changes in eligibility (and I believe the States pay for cost increases) that "Republicans" would be advocates for (Republicans support state control of federal programs... except when it came to Obamacare where they reveresed themselves). Note that the basic criteria of 130% of the poverty level hasn't changed since 2002. So the spending is more because poverty has increased, it's easier to sign-up, and some of the benefits have increased due to need, but the basic income level to qualify has not changed and we were addressing the "income levels" that economists define poverty as.  

In 2002 and early 2003 the UN Weapon's Inspectors had unlimited access in Iraq to go anywhere virtually without notification. They went to every location that "US intelligence" identified as being a potential site for WMD storage and/or production. Their report to the UN was that there was no evidence whatsoever that Iraq had any WMD's and that Iraq DID NOT have any WMD production facilities. The only so-called evidence that the US intelligence had was very unreliable hearsay testimony from expatriated Iraqis that had not been in Iraq since the 1980's (that we know were lying today) and an analysis from a post graduate student in Berkley written in 1991 about Iraq in the 1980's when Iraq did have WMD programs that the British Intelligence was citing. The UN Weapons Inspectors explicitly stated that given a couple more months they would finish their complete inspection of Iraq ensuring that Iraq did not have and could not produce WMD's.

Instead of simply waiting for a couple of months for the Weapons Inspectors to finish up their work, in violation of the UN Charter and without UN authorization, the US invaded. President Bush didn't want the UN Weapons Inspectors to prove that Iraq didn't have and couldn't produce WMD's because that would prevent him from invading Iraq and he was dead-set on invading Iraq from his first weeks in office (probably from even before as a presidential candidate but he didn't share that with the American People). The Iraq "WMD/9-11 al  Qaeda" scare tactics coming out of the White House was nothing but propaganda for rationalizing the invasion and that "opportunity" would be lost if the UN Weapons Inspectors were allowed to complete their job so Bush invaded before that could be accomplished.  

When I point to "evil" leaders of the United States we really need to put Bush/Cheney near or at the top of that list because the Iraq War really had nothing to do with WMD's or any possible threat that Iraq presented to the US or any other nation. The current and very accurate intelligence coming from the UN Weapons Inspector was that Iraq had no WMD's, that Iraq not a threat, and we knew for a fact that al Qaeda was not in Iraq and that Saddam was staunchly opposed to al Qaeda because it was a threat to his regime.

Jul 25, 2014 0:05:32 GMT pjohns1873 said:

Your level of vitriol toward both George W. Bush and Dick Cheney is most instructive. The left (rather frequently) bemoans the verbal treatment of President Obama by the right; yet many on the left have likened George W. Bush and Dick Cheney to "Nazis" and "fascists."  And, although you have not used these exact terms, it appears evident that your distaste for these two men is equally severe. 

The "UN Weapons Inspectors" and Hans Blix were a joke. And a terribly cruel joke, at that.

Saddam Hussein certainly gave the impression of his having something to hide, as he was not exactly transparent in his acquiescence to inspections. 

And just because a $2,000 car is merely "a piece of junk that requires a lot of repairs"--which is certainly true--do you really believe that any assets test is "down right stupid"?   

There is a huge difference between my condemnation of former President Bush and VP Cheney when compared to the condenmation by the "right" of President Obama today. There is no disrespect for either of them as people but instead I condemn their actions in office that violated the Constitution, the laws and the ideals upon which America was founded. There is nothing personal in my feeling about them at all but instead my condemnation is based upon what I believe to be solid evidence of wrongful actions they committed. From many on the "right" I read actual hatred of President Obama but I've never hated either Bush or Cheney.

I condemn them for their actions in office but have never expressed any hatred for them as people and have always referred to them with the highest terms of respect. As you should have noticed I always respectfully refer to the as President Bush or VP Cheney (that I might later shorten to Bush and Cheney) in ever post I've ever made about them. I condemn their actions and not them personally. I also do that with President Obama such as with the deployment of Special Forces to Iraq today which is in support of the tyrannical regime the US installed in Iraq. I oppose supporting tyranny which is what Obama is doing in Iraq presently.

Why would you condemn the UN Weapons Inspectors and Hans Blix? That makes no sense. They had unrestricted access to literally anyplace they decided to inspect and inspected every site that US, UK, and other intelligence sources identified as possible WMD sites and found nothing. They stated that within months that they would have completed a 100% inspection of any and all possible leads on WMD's. What is even more important is the fact that their on the ground intelligence was 100% accurate when they stated Iraq did not have any WMD production facilities and there was absolutely no evidence that Iraq had any WMD's.

How can anyone condemn the UN Weapons Inspectors and Hans Blix when they were 100% correct?

The only people that were telling the truth in 2002 and early 2003 were Hans Blix and the adminstration of Saddam Hussein both of which repeatedly stated that Iraq did not have any WMD's or WMD production facilities. You are aware of that fact aren't you?  

What possible compelling reason could former President Bush or VP Cheney have had in pushing for an invasion when they could have simply waited a few months to know for sure whether Iraq had any WMD's that hadn't been found? This goes along with the question of why former President Bush was opposed to any negotiations with the government of Afghanistan to bring Osama bin Laden to justice in Oct 2001? The Taliban Government was openly attempting to seek a diplomatic solution that would allow for the prosecution of bin Laden on terrorism charges so why didn't Bush want to negotiate as opposed to going to war?

.

Basically we had two wars under former President Bush that both could very possibly have been avoided by simply delaying any military action by just a couple of months and hundreds of thousands of innocent people have died because of those wars. Yes, I'm outraged by the unnecesary deaths of hunderds of thousands of innocent people simply because the Bush Adminstration wanted to go to war instead of possibly resolving issues of international concern without going to war. 

Everyone should be outraged over the fact that we waged two war that were both appear to have been avoidable if the Bush Adminstration would not have been so gung ho in seeking war over peace.

The next thing on the horizon is the possible release of the Senate's six year investigation related to the extent of the torture under the Bush Adminstration based upon all of the enhanced interrogation techniques. There has been no real question that the enhanced interrogation techniques were torture and the report merely details the actual cases of torture. More important to me is that conspiracy to commit torture and the actual comission of torture are felonies under US law that can result in the dealth penalty and it is also a War Crime and Crime Against Humanity under international law that can result in life in prisonment. Are those that committed these crimes ever going to be prosecuted for them?

Jul 25, 2014 23:24:15 GMT pjohns1873 said:

I have certainly never personalized my distaste for President Obama, either. And I cringe whenever I hear him referred to in a disrespectful manner (such as "Obammy"); not really so much because of the insult to him, personally, but because of the disrespect shown to the office he holds.

In any event, it is really hard for me to see how you might be able to rationalize the vitriol toward former President Bush and former Vice-President Cheney.  Clearly, for many on the left, it is indeed personal. 

Hans Blix was merely a puppet of the late Saddam Hussein.  Saddam certainly did not give Mr. Blix's inspectors "unrestricted access" to "anyplace." At least, not at just anytime.  That "access" was often delayed--just long enough, it appeared, to remove any weapons that might be hidden in the place to be searched. 

You stated in another post that you do not believe that a legitimate function of the criminal-justice system is the seeking of revenge.  Yet that is precisely what you appear to desire, with regard to those who engaged in enhanced-interrogation techniques.   

We are both different in many regards from many "general" posters on forums which is why I believe we respect each other so much. Using the word "vitriol" is rather pejorative in addressing my critical review of actions committed by person's in office.

Last night on Bill Maher he had a GOP stategist that commented on "war" and his position was that "war" should not be taken off the table as an option but that war was horrible and should always be the last resort. In both Afghanistan and Iraq it was not the "last resort" by any standard. In Afghanistan the Taliban was attempting a diplomatic resolution and in Iraq just a few more months were all that were required for the UN Weapons Inspectors to complete their investigation. "A few more months" in either case could very possibly have prevented both wars.  

You're completely wrong about the UN inspections in 2002 and early 2003 because the inspectors were not being delayed at all related to inspecting any location at anytime. Yes, it might have taken a few minutes to find the person that had a key to the gate of a facility but the delay was measured in minutes and not hours or days. It was completely unlike right after the Gulf War where access wasn't just delayed but also refused in some cases. Iraq was complying fully in allowing immediate access to any and all locations where the UN Weapons Inspectors wanted to go. Iraq had no reason for any delays because it didn't have any WMD's or WMD production facilities to hide. Saddam had ordered any remaining WMD's destroyed in 1998 (we found that out after capturing Saddam).

No, I don't seek "revenge" in addressing the criminal violations of the laws of the United States related to prosecution for those crimes. In fact I would personally like to see the prosecutions and then, assuming conviction, have any prison sentences commuted in most cases. I would not like to see a CIA agent sent to prison for following the directions of their supervisor. At the same time I would expect them to be discharged from the CIA for abuse of authority because they violated the law and I'd also like to see those that refused to follow those orders, and there were some that did, decorated and recognized for their performace as they were heros IMO. I would not want either former President Bush or VP Cheney sent to prison either.

It isn't about sending them to prison as punishment but instead it's about censoring under the authority of a court of law for their violation of the law and the US Constitution. In almost all cases it would be prosecute, convict, sentence and then commute the sentence.

That is seeking justice and enforcement of the rule of law and it is not about  punishment.