I'm passing along an article.

If you have an article or some confessions or something I can read about how the violence was perpetrated by a specific person or group, I'm happy to read it.

But you saw the part where the Alambama blogger suggested the idea, right?

 

I said it would not surprise me if it was a liberal trying to put it off on "radical right-wingers" given my knowledge of the city it occurred in (the gas line incident in Charlottesville) not necessarily that it was.

Another thing though...what does his stance on open-carry have to do with telling people to throw bricks through windows? Gotta love the liberals taking every chance they can to make an anti-gun reference in an article.

 

Classy:

 

So the nation was in super debt before Obama. WTF up with youtube? Over night and we get a totally different layout.

 

OK, you knuckleheads...why don't we all take an extension on our tax returns! If the government is soooo in the red, why not help this fool (B.O.) realize his goals quickly...the government halted with no revenue for his socialist plans. FILE AND EXTENSION ON YOUR TAX RETURN!

 

Why not get the masses to protest paying taxes?

 

The government would simply borrow more money from the central bank which would simply print it.

 

That's right, the only thing that works is to DE-FUND government.

I have a simple proposal:

Step 1: get rid of withholding tax on wages - let people write the checks for all their taxes in one lump sum on April 15, one check each for local, state, and the federal gov't.

Step 2: all elections, local, state, and federal gov't are held on April 16...


(Of course, the "liberals" won't have any of this, because of their beloved ideals of central planning and authority ...)

 

America's cost for credit, at least in the short term, would skyrocket because the Fed would lose a reliable income stream from which to pay for said international loans. On a microeconomic scale analogy, the bank (Foreign Govt/Investor) is less likely to loan an individual money at a low rate if you (US Fed Govt) do not have a job resulting in a steady income (up-front taxation on taxpayer wages). Not to mention all of the individuals who would end up in legitimate trouble with the IRS because they are incapable (due to lack of discipline) of setting aside money to pay their taxes.

But, in the long run, perhaps it would improve our credit worthiness if it reduced the Fed Debt by putting additional pressure on the Fed Govt to be more fiscally responsible.

 

Pick another country in the world that operates on a similar scale to America where you would genuinely rather live. Not a dig, just curious.

We have it really good here and for the size of this place I can't think of another system that would work with any less problems. This is not to say that we shouldn't always look to improve, but talk of anarchy and murder are utterly ******* absurd in this day and age.

 

This is my point exactly...so why am I always hearing the argument "well we're the only country left without gov. health care

 

That's what I've been saying about the health care reform bill from day one. Don't add a bunch of new BS that doesn't really fix anything. Either completely take health care over like Canada or work to improve the current system. How do you improve the current system? Exactly what Olderguy said. Control health care costs. It's crazy that health care costs have increased at 3-4 times inflation for the last 40 years.

A typical surgeon in Florida pay nearly 200K a year for malpractice insurance. The same surgeon in Minnesota pays an average of 18K. Why? People in Florida sue doctors at the drop of a hat and Minnesotans not so much. Tort reform FTW.

Cost control should have been the number one priority of health care reform and the bill passed did nothing towards accomplishing that.

 

In the end this might not be a bad idea at all, but I'd feel my own pain similar to Joe's every April 15th, just not as bad.

 

eles if those 2 steps were done, we'd instatnly have a taxpayer revolt.


Here is a great idea for tort reform:

- give a tax credit for "negative outcome insurance" purchased just before a medical procedure. This insurance guarantees a payout if something goes wrong. This way you don't have to spend money to sue for compensation (and you're not even sure of winning), and docs who have a record of screwing up will see negative outcome insurance for them going up. This way the patient sees it when he buys it, and gets to vote with his wallet whether or not to get that particular doctor's services.

 

That wasn't my point. I was talking about the way our government operates in general, the good and the bad. Not just health care reform (judgement to be given at a later point).