"And after he cut taxes and taxes are lower now than under Reagan."
Which specific tax rates were cut that now place them lower than they were under Reagan?Comment Posted By sota On 16.04.2009 @ 15:26
Sorry for the amateurish blockquoting...sigh.Comment Posted By sota On 15.04.2009 @ 17:00
[quote]I’ve traveled outside the country a great deal. The places with high taxes and big government are places most Americans would like to visit. Think Britain, Netherlands, Italy, etc… Places with little government and low taxes are places most would prefer not to visit. Think Somalia, Afghanistan, and Iraq.[/quote]
Sure, most Americans might like visiting those places, but very few would want to live in those places. I see no relation between a vacation destination and the tax rate imposed on its citizens.
[quote] Government screws things up. Private business screws things up.[/quote]
True on both accounts. It's rare, however, to see government's failures lead to anything punitive. Private businesses screw up and typically lose clients, money, or go bankrupt. Government screws up and it raises taxes to pay for those screw ups.
The focus on April 15th as "Tax Day" or "Patriot's Day" or any other singularity is also disingenuous. If Americans were required to pay their total income tax bill on April 15th, these Tea Parties would have started a long, long...long time ago.Comment Posted By sota On 15.04.2009 @ 16:59
"Mr. Obama is putting the marginal rates back where they were under Clinton. I seem to recall we did pretty well under Clinton. 35% is happy days, but 39.6% is the apocalypse? Pffft."
This line of argument is tired and misleading. Everyone recognizes, we're in some pretty different times right now. Blindly claiming that "it worked then, it can't be that bad now" without honestly assessing the underlying differences is disingenuous. Using that line or reasoning, we may as well look back at the tax rates during the lowest point of unemployment in our nation's history and shoot for that, right? Ignore all other factors?Comment Posted By sota On 9.03.2009 @ 04:57
As an academic exercise, the interesting parts seem to be defining "successors" in regards to Section 1 of the Twentieth Amendment as well as defining "qualify" in regards to Section 3 of the Twentieth Amendment.
I think most would link the "qualify" to Article 2, Section 1 (natural born citizen, 35 years old, etc), but it's certainly not explicit. One reading of the "successors" language could be read to refer to line of succession. I wouldn't read it that way, but the whole discussion is interesting nonetheless.
As to who would have standing? It would seem Congress as a body would. They're granted the power to mandate by law in the case where neither the President nor the Vice President has qualified. If "qualify" includes executing the oath, anyway...
Regardless, as everyone admits, Obama is President.Comment Posted By sota On 21.01.2009 @ 20:29
This display/spectacle/fiasco feels a bit like a giant piñata, except these industries didn't even have to take a meager swing at the cash-stuffed prize. Congress cracked it open themselves, dumped it on the floor, and the kids have come running like...well...like kids do when they see free candy on the floor.
The whole thing is becoming a disgusting mess.Comment Posted By sota On 12.11.2008 @ 22:35