62% . . .Is it enough?

or should it be higher? How much is enough?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304066504576343611464445594.html

"A 62% Top Tax Rate?
Democrats have said they only intend to restore the tax rates that existed during the Clinton years. In reality they're proposing rates like those under President Carter.

Media reports in recent weeks say that Senate Democrats are considering a 3% surtax on income over $1 million to raise federal revenues. This would come on top of the higher income tax rates that President Obama has already proposed through the cancellation of the Bush era tax-rate reductions.

If the Democrats' millionaire surtax were to happen—and were added to other tax increases already enacted last year and other leading tax hike ideas on the table this year—this could leave the U.S. with a combined federal and state top tax rate on earnings of 62%. That's more than double the highest federal marginal rate of 28% when President Reagan left office in 1989. Welcome back to the 1970s. . . ." more at the link


is the sky the limit?


Post edited by Killet at 5/27/2011 12:23:31 PM

Depends on what they actually wind up paying. Our corporate tax rates seem excessive too - until you learn how much GE paid.



If we're getting serious about paying down the deficit, higher income tax rates for the top tax bracket paired with cuts in spending are a viable method of achieving this. That percentage does sound excessive, yet the results it achieves may be drastically different.
Post edited by Coba|t at 5/27/2011 1:51:07 PM

Tax levels are the lowest in 60 years. Doesn't seem to be working.

but, is 62% enough?

Am I reading this right?

"If the Democrats' millionaire surtax were to happen—and were added to other tax increases already enacted last year and other leading tax hike ideas on the table this year—this could leave the U.S. with a combined federal and state top tax rate on earnings of 62%. That's more than double the highest federal marginal rate of 28% when President Reagan left office in 1989. Welcome back to the 1970s. . . ."

So he purposely begins the op-ed by lying via false comparison (state and federal versus just federal). Ignoring his rhetorical dickheadedness in the first section, because he does correct it later, where then does he then get that 62% figure? Oh, he does it by combining every independent Democratic proposal, politically realistic or not, meant to pass in concert or not. He even manages to imply that a 23.8% capital gains tax would be added onto the pile as if it were another straw onto the camel's back, even though capital gains rates are the reason Warren Buffet has a lower tax rate than his secretary. It's not income tax + capital gains. It's income tax or capital gains.

He ignores the massive amounts of loopholes and tax deductions available to people with dedicated accountants. Even if every Democratic proposal passed in its exact, wish-list state, no rich person would pay a rate of 62%. On paper, they would have some income taxed at 62%, some taxed at 23.8%. And then the deductions and offsets and loopholes emerge. And they'd be down around thirty-something. Is incoherent lying on behalf of the rich really the state of modern conservatism?

Last but not least, he compares the sum total of every one of those independent Democratic proposals to the "starve the beast" era, when every tax cut was justified, spending cuts were put off until later, and the only reason the deficit wasn't massive was because of historical circumstances; Medicare and Social Security expenses were not ballooning because the baby boomers had not yet retired.

Post edited by the wierdo at 5/27/2011 3:45:45 PM

Killet, dont even consider Taxable Income vs. AGI and all that "confusing" shit....

just read these words and rest nicely tonight, rapture is not here yet, it's in Oct 21st.

Originally posted by: the wierdo
...
He ignores the massive amounts of loopholes and tax deductions available to people with dedicated accountants. ...

Originally posted by: Killet
is the sky the limit?

Yes.

It's such a partisan hackjob to say that allowing Bush tax cuts to expire (as intended during their creation) is raising taxes. It's a shitty argument made by shitty people.

Originally posted by: ~~Snake~~
I have forwarded videos of porn stars fucking horses.

no need to raise taxes at all. thats a political stunt being proposed by weak politicians to pander to the entire social democratic wing to appease their welfare base.

the real solution to the problem is to remove every possible loophole they can but they wont do that because they, along with their wealthy democrat friends, take advantage of them.

but, as long as they "raise" taxes on the wealthy, the idiots will go back to watching American Idol and think the Democrats did something.

Originally posted by: samUwell
no need to raise taxes at all. thats a political stunt being proposed by weak politicians to pander to the entire social democratic wing to appease their welfare base.

the real solution to the problem is to remove every possible loophole they can but they wont do that because they, along with their wealthy democrat friends, take advantage of them.

but, as long as they "raise" taxes on the wealthy, the idiots will go back to watching American Idol and think the Democrats did something.

this I agree with and I think eliminating loopholes is the best part of a fair tax or flat tax plan. But then you have no power for politicians to play with and use on the slaves so it will never happen

Reduction of the deficit is key to long term stability, job growth is key to short term recovery. Once job growth begins to rebound, both a gradual reduction in spending beginning soon, and a return to pre-bush tax cut rates once the extension expires would be an optimum combination of revenue generation and expenditure reduction to reduce the deficit.

Drastically cutting spending to shift the burden onto states, further reducing jobs in necessary positions like teachers, police, and emergency responders would reduce revenue immediately and hamper job growth.

Writing off any tax increases in the future - especially a return to any sort of pre-bush tax cut status for any of the brackets, while simultaneously claiming you're serious about job growth and deficit reduction doesn't sound so serious to me.

cobalt, you might be interested in reading this: Why the Rich Are Getting Richer

Increasing inequality in the United States has long been attributed to unstoppable market forces. In fact, as Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson show, it is the direct result of congressional policies that have consciously -- and sometimes inadvertently -- skewed the playing field toward the rich

I'll take a look at it in a couple days when I get a little free time!

Originally posted by: DirtyMitten
Tax levels are the lowest in 60 years. Doesn't seem to be working.

You know what else isn't working....our politicians and elected officials.

I'd argue that a 100% taxation rate isn't going to resolve that massive issue...

Originally posted by: Coba|t

Drastically cutting spending to shift the burden onto states, further reducing jobs in necessary positions like teachers, police, and emergency responders would reduce revenue immediately and hamper job growth.

Keynesian bullshit alert.....Keynesian bullshit alert

First off....I agree with you that cutting (imo. excessive) "FEDERAL" spending will put the burden back onto the states....which is, the last I checked, where the responsibility for EDUCATION and EMERGENCY SERVICES should be (and always has been).

Ex...WTF does the 100 billion we spend for the Department of Education actually do for anyone?

I'd strongly argue that that money going back to the states, from which it came, would do infinitely more for education than what the DOE offers anyone.

Lastly....

reduce revenue immediately and hamper job growth.

What revenue do they produce exactly? This seems to be a wealth generation argument and exactly how much do police agencies and education "produce" for the state.....in $$$ figures please....not happy feelings.

Oh, that's right...they don't actually produce measurable wealth. They are always in the red....just like the USPS...and that's why they are always running massive deficits....this is why cops have to keep jacking ticket prices....and why entire states are going insolvent trying to pay for their massively excessive government employee work force.

The system used to work in a manner that government loses could easily be absorbed by the private sector...but now that we have far more than 2x as many government employees (takers) than we do manufacturers (makers) the entire system is falling apart at the fucking seems.

That's what people don't get about massive stimulus spending and government hiring (that doesn't produce wealth)....taxes have to approach or exceed 100% in order for everyone to be a government worker.

Paying people to work, to do work that costs far more than they can possibly return, isn't an answer for anything...except going further and further broke.

Don't believe me...try hiring six thousand gardeners and see how rich you are at the end of the month. Unless they are gardening pot or opium....you can't possibly produce "wealth"....no matter how pretty and tight edged your hedges appear.

It kills me how few people can grasp this simplistic concept.

Keynes was a fucking tard when he said you can make a sustainable economy out of paying people to dig unnecessary holes just so you can later pay other people to fill those holes back in again.

Post edited by Mockery at 5/30/2011 6:57:28 PM

The impact of cutting possibly hundreds of thousands of teaching and emergency responder jobs would equate to an immediate reduction in consumption from those facing immediate, and possibly future job cuts.

The tax revenue generated from their income isn't the only thing being effected when you consider that they're consumers - a larger percentage of their salary beyond simply the income and payroll tax portion becomes revenue for the government.

Furthermore, when you consider the economic impact of immediately firing workers such as police in high crime areas, and the future impact of firing teachers in low income areas, the picture points to a downward progression. And I'm not talking about wealth trickling downward.

Originally posted by: Coba|t
The impact of cutting possibly hundreds of thousands of teaching and emergency responder jobs would equate to an immediate reduction in consumption from those facing immediate, and possibly future job cuts.

I totally agree....It would have the exact same effect as cutting unemployment benefits and welfare as well.

Still doesn't alter my previous argument.

The tax revenue generated from their income

What income????

The one we pay them, in excess!!!, of what they physically produce in wealth?

That's what you are still failing to grasp here.

Pay your gardener 2x....take back x (in total taxation).....when they produced far less than x in any measurable wealth....and how much new wealth did you GENERATE??? Get the concept of diminishing returns yet?

Furthermore, when you consider the economic impact of immediately firing workers such as police in high crime areas, and the future impact of firing teachers in low income areas, the picture points to a downward progression. And I'm not talking about wealth trickling downward.

More cops != less crime...that's misnomer #1.

Secondly...assuming it did...Are you suddenly against the SCOTUS releasing 130k inmates in CA? Surely that too will also boost crime rates....(I know it can't possibly lower them).

Lastly....with less than 50% of kids graduating from HS on time...how much worse can our education system possibly get?

I'm not even going to be a dick and pretend that we need less teachers....when we really need less administrators. If you ever get a chance to watch the documentary "The Cartel" it clearly illustrates where our education system is so shattered.

10k per kid....30 kids....300k per class

Teacher earns 30-60k on average...WTF happens to the other 90% of that money? It gets sponged up by assholes at the administrators buildings who drive around in Lexi and Mercedes and do jack squat for kids all day....that's where it goes.

Again..this proves that education money doesn't help kids as much as it supports careers in work that simply can not produce wealth for anyone....not even the happy/feel good kind of wealth....

Stealing more money from those who do produce wealth, via increased taxation, in order to further support (and hire more) unproductive people isn't going to fix our economy....I'd strongly argue that it will only make it even more fucked up.
Post edited by Mockery at 5/30/2011 7:14:05 PM

Originally posted by: Coba|t
The impact of cutting possibly hundreds of thousands of teaching and emergency responder jobs would equate to an immediate reduction in consumption from those facing immediate, and possibly future job cuts.

The tax revenue generated from their income isn't the only thing being effected when you consider that they're consumers - a larger percentage of their salary beyond simply the income and payroll tax portion becomes revenue for the government.

Furthermore, when you consider the economic impact of immediately firing workers such as police in high crime areas, and the future impact of firing teachers in low income areas, the picture points to a downward progression. And I'm not talking about wealth trickling downward.

Cutting such jobs is blackmail/extortion and only creates a problem to be fixed with more taxes in order to keep the system running properly. Plenty of other jobs within the system could get the ax or reduced funding and still be able to function within the current budget.

And Dieslut brings up a good point....

Why is it that we are butchering schools and basic emergency services when we have so many other fucked up programs that should be up on the cutting block instead?....

I'll tell you why, because you can't hold something hostage that nobody gives two shits about. You can't threaten to cut social services to say....illegal immigrants and get tax payers to cry about it and voluntarily shell out more money.

However, cut education for their kids hard enough...threaten that they will no longer have cops and firemen to protect their families....and suddenly those pockets open back up like an awkward virgin visiting a strip club.

The fact remains that we are being held hostage by our asshole politicians, who also want bigger and bigger government, and have somehow let them, not us, shape the discourse of this debate and we are all left holding the bag paying more and more for shittier and shittier basic services.

It takes a governor willing to compromise across the boards to make cuts, raise tax revenue, ask for union concessions, and try to preserve certain state jobs while sacrificing others to balance a budget when faced with a shortfall to get things done in the shortest amount of time.

It will be interesting to see how Governor Malloy of CT does, since thats exactly how he advertises his plan to fix the state budget which he inherited from the last administration with Jody Rell as Governor - she refused to raise taxes all the way to the end, instead cutting funds for programs life Lifestar which offers emergency medical helicopter evacuation services for life threatening traumatic injuries. Now that the state is beginning to enter a recovery phase, it will be interesting to examine if this combination of cuts and tax increases hampers our recovery or not. It sure isn't making him any friends - hes spreading the suffering.

I personally don't mind paying my share into the system to fix it, everyone is going to hurt these days given what we've been benefiting from without paying our debts to. The issue I take is when someone says we need to cut XYZ but don't raise taxes at all. Its the approach that 'well I didn't cause this, so I shouldn't have to be part of the solution'. Well, you can vote, can't you? You can move, can't you? You've been benefiting from state services this whole time, haven't you? Time to pay up and cover the short-fall.

As far as cutting teachers jobs, they are always the first to go during a budget crisis. After sports funding, music, arts, etc are cut, what they're left with is firing the newest teachers. Even if you've been teaching in another region for 25 years, and you move there to begin teaching this year, you're the first in so you're also the first to be fired.

Its easy to criticize and say 'look at how much administrators make!?' when the end result of cutting funding is firing teachers with the thought that they can only fire so many before they begin reducing pay for administrators - it isn't going to work that way.

What you dismiss as "Keynesian bullshit", I look at as the pragmatic approach given the consequences that we all have experienced in the past and are facing in the near term future. I'm seeing guys looking for a second full time job because their wives are being laid off from their teaching positions.

We've been applying the same Keynes-based economic principles to our economy for decades. Government spending and tax cuts go hand in hand when discussing keynesian-influenced economic benefits. You can't call yourself a "Reagan Republican" while distancing yourself from these principles because they're one in the same - the concept that tax cuts spurs economic growth during a low period of economic growth is by the very definition Keynesian. Hence the stimulus, which the CBO indicates reduced the unemployment rate by between %0.7 and %1.8 during 2010, and %0.5 and %1.5 by the end of 2011.

The cost of this results in a deficit - which we should certainly be focused on reducing. In the short term, our debt is cheaper than ever. In the long term, we need to pay it off by increasing taxes and revenue as the economy recovers while we reduce our expenditures.


I propose to you that the real bullshit concept is that businesses are not hiring at a greater rate because they're worried about our cheap debt in the short-term.
Post edited by Coba|t at 5/30/2011 10:18:20 PM

Originally posted by: Coba|t

The issue I take is when someone says we need to cut XYZ but don't raise taxes at all. Its the approach that 'well I didn't cause this, so I shouldn't have to be part of the solution'. Well, you can vote, can't you? You can move, can't you? You've been benefiting from state services this whole time, haven't you? Time to pay up and cover the short-fall.

See...right there I fundamentally disagree with your thought process.

Take myself for example. I pay well over 20k in taxes...have zero kids....and typically ride my bike to work in the desert 3 miles every single day. I make way too much to qualify for government subsidies and handouts, but don't make nearly enough to ever retire comfortably, or be able to afford my own house anytime soon (if ever in CA). Our roads in this region are absolute crap...there are zero bike lanes...no curbs and the roads have mostly returned to dirt over here in Kern County.

Last year I was mandated by Arnold to pay an additional .25% state income tax, an additional 1% sales tax, another $250 dollars to register my car....and I paid it (not like I had any choice). All in all, I paid a minimum of an additional 800-1000 dollars last year.

Now, my home state, of California....is another +20 billion or so in debt. The tax raise they implemented changed nothing, because the state simply continues to expand and spend at an infinitely faster flow rate than it can raise revenue.

They can talk about prop 13...they can bitch about corporations....gas taxes...you name it....but the state is bankrupt because of it's lack of fiscal priorities and assbackwards economic policies IMO.

It raises more money in taxation than any other state in the nation (and almost all other states combined)...yet remains one of the most insolvent states in the entire country.

No amount of money will change that....it's the exact same reason people like Michael Jackson went bankrupt despite making millions per annum in music royalties.

No amount of new revenue generation or additional income can fix stupid.....none.

Now...I'm being asked to fork out more "for the collective."

My question is why the fuck should I? It's not like I'm receiving anything for what I pay already...what exactly do I get from my state for all that I pay?

What, exactly, is my ethical obligation and duty to pay more? Because I live in California....fuck that....that's not a valid reason...if it was native american's who reside here would also have to pay taxes (which they don't).

Is it because I live in American?.......fuck that, I say, because then why don't illegal immigrants owe any income taxes?

I'm barely into giving away all of my money when it goes to a real charity....or when I honestly believe in a specific cause....

The CA government is not a viable entity that I can believe in, nor are they a body that I can trust in anymore.

Yet, here they remain, continually pointing their authoritarian mandate at me to pay ever increasing taxes for ever declining services (by force).

Even though it is they, not I, who has the longstanding history of gross fiscal and mental incompetence, conduct massively wasteful spending, and have become yet another epitome of corporate cronyism....

I am sick of continually being mandated to pay more and more for less and less.....and I can't help but ask why the fuck should I? Perhaps you can help me out with that....
Post edited by Mockery at 5/30/2011 11:09:22 PM

Originally posted by: Coba|t

Its easy to criticize and say 'look at how much administrators make!?' when the end result of cutting funding is firing teachers with the thought that they can only fire so many before they begin reducing pay for administrators - it isn't going to work that way.

It doesn't work that way because it is the overpriced administrators who get to decide funding allocations and who is getting fired....

How quaint that it's always the fatcats, who do the least, and get paid the most, who always seem to find themselves to be too fucking important to be placed on the cutting block.

As a progressive you should know better than anyone that it's always the factory workers, the teachers, the producers who get cut so that those middle managers, living in excess, can continue to get more.

But never did I think I would see someone like you openly acknowledging that, accepting this, and advocating further subsidization of such a bullshit system.

Times have changed I suppose.
Post edited by Mockery at 5/30/2011 11:17:00 PM

We've been applying the same Keynes-based economic principles to our economy for decades.

And how has that been working out for us....

They say if it aint broke don't fix it...well I would clearly say that, via our very broken economy, this concept and America is very fucking broke.

It's no wonder we have people believing that Katrina recovery raised our GDP...that QE boosts our countries earnings....that borrowing and spending far beyond our repayment means is sound....and that Japan's lagging economy can be saved by tsunami repairs.

People have been living in a very stupid fucking dream for a very long period of time now. This in no way implies that anything that we have done is a sound, productive, policy that we should continue adhering to long into the future.

If Keynesian economics worked (works) so well how the fuck do you explain this.......

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Decade_(Japan)

They should call it the lost century...and it's exactly the same reason we haven't had any real economic prosperity in over a decade.

Keynesian economics in job creation is simply stall tactic that assumes that something else will eventually take over for it as an economic engine....and well....if something doesn't eventually take over it eventually stagnates, stalls and eventually produces less than it costs to implement (which Japan has illustrated).
Post edited by Mockery at 5/30/2011 11:26:36 PM

I propose to you that the real bullshit concept is that businesses are not hiring at a greater rate because they're worried about our cheap debt in the short-term.

First off...stop assuming Reagan was right on everything. That's horseshit. Most of his fiscal policies were also a stall tactic. He was also the junky and architect that got this country crack addicted to our absurd and newfound deficit spending habit.

Businesses are not hiring because they don't have to. They have zero incentives to hire....to not cheat on their taxes, to outsource, and to automate so they don't have to pay wages/benefits to anyone.

All of these exploits prop up business quarterly statements, which in turn prop up the stock market.....this is the entity that our politicians really work for.

Our government loves this.....because perceived increases in corporate profit revenues = more taxes for them.

This also makes everyone who is unemployed a bottom feeder who also has to rely solely on our government as their sole savior in life.

Another great thing....for them anyways....just like monopolies....too big to fail....etc.

All of this shit results in more money for our government, via taxation, lobbying, and/or increased campaign donations,

And it also sets up an ample opportunity for private greed to collapse entire industries...which the government, profiting this entire time, can then justify nationalizing and eventually having even more control over.

More good things....

It's nothing but a power play ...and is how America has become some such a fascist state today. Quid-pro-Quo....


Post edited by Mockery at 5/30/2011 11:41:18 PM

There is a very sound reason that every authoritarian country on Earth has the overwhelming majority of it's citizens living in absolute destitute and poverty.....while the elite hold the bulk of the nations total wealth.

There is also a reason that the more power we give our government the more wealth concentrations seem to internally reflect those models.

Causation is a motherfucker....and so are politicians.

So on one hand, you have your "too big to fail" corporate fat cats, and on the other hand you have your "too freedom loving to regulate" working class dolts.

Whats your take on banking regulation?

Originally posted by: Coba|t
So on one hand, you have your "too big to fail" corporate fat cats, and on the other hand you have your "too freedom loving to regulate" working class dolts.

Whats your take on banking regulation?

I honestly don't think that our regulators work for us anymore...just as I don't trust that our politicians, who appoint regulators, actually work for us.

I stopped giving them any trust, to do anything honest , when I learned that lobbyists actually draft the majority (in CA +60%) of all legislation and regulation that gets passed today.

examples:
http://www.dailybreeze.com/news/ci_15485061
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090423/1415514627.shtml

I honestly believe that our government has one major role in our economy and that is to curb stomp the distortion and manipulation of free markets (in regards to market competition, not trade).

Monopolies are a cancer that destroy Capitalism outright....

Sadly......This is about the only duty that I don't see our government doing anything about.

Yet they have their hands in everything else out there....micromanaging every aspect of our economy except for their sole and exclusive duty.

Example:
Family in Mo. fined four million dollars by USDA for selling bunny rabbits out of their home.

http://www.naturalnews.com/032476_rabbits_USDA.html#ixzz1N5W0B2Hz

But yet.....AT&T and T-MOBILE can merge with zero objections from our fucking government...In fact...it actually gets their blessing and we are increasing public subsidization of their overpriced services.

http://www.betanews.com/article/ATT-and-TMobile-merger-No-way-to-resurrect-competition-once-its-gone/1306432040

=========================================================

All ranting aside...are people just not paying fucking attention? Are they blind....or do they simply not give a shit anymore about the epic dicking they keep on getting on behalf of corporations and fake government regulation that has been constructed on their behalf?

I say promote free market principles and competition at all costs and do not let business get "too big to fail"...and if they do get that big the government MUST stop them from merging anymore....or they should be allowed to fail, once they collapse under their own greed, and should be broken back up into dozens of smaller, competing, market bodies again. (all of which, may I add, were policies that businesses and government went in the complete opposite direction of)

We have somehow implemented a system that has implemented all of the public collective cost contribution requirements of socialism....with none of the public benefits.....and all of the savage privatization of wealth and greed of Capitalism....without any of the checks/balances and cost savings that laissez faire can contributes.

It's fucking sickening and should make everyone pissed off.


Post edited by Mockery at 5/31/2011 1:55:51 AM

I'm not necessaraly talking about a system of regulators, as much as a system with regulations - IE Glass Steagall - rules that regulate what a company is capable of venturing into given certain circumstances which would make them risky to the economy as a whole.

I seem to hear lots of mish-mashing of the two related concepts - EPA has lots of regulators making sure everyone is following the rules - the FEDs have regulators making sure the banks are keeping their books in order - they also have regulations that simply ensure that things which are of sufficient detriment to the public as a whole, and can't be trusted to private industry to clean up after itself, get addressed. I'm thinking of super fund sites, and FDIC insurance. Both of which are funded by the industry, to work for society as a whole, to clean up after the industries which failed to meet their obligations and left everyone with a mess to clean up after.

Originally posted by: Coba|t
I'm not necessaraly talking about a system of regulators, as much as a system with regulations - IE Glass Steagall - rules that regulate what a company is capable of venturing into given certain circumstances which would make them risky to the economy as a whole.

No problem with that....but much as banks need to separate risky investment schema's from real commercial holdings.....so should politicians/committees, who construct these regulations, be held separated from special interests and lobbyists (and their $$$$$$).

Otherwise we don't have real regulation, but deregulation being disguised as re-regulation. As it sits, our country has virtually regulated everything......except what actually needs to be regulated.

Originally posted by: Coba|t
I seem to hear lots of mish-mashing of the two related concepts - EPA has lots of regulators making sure everyone is following the rules - the FEDs have regulators making sure the banks are keeping their books in order - they also have regulations that simply ensure that things which are of sufficient detriment to the public as a whole, and can't be trusted to private industry to clean up after itself, get addressed. I'm thinking of super fund sites, and FDIC insurance. Both of which are funded by the industry, to work for society as a whole, to clean up after the industries which failed to meet their obligations and left everyone with a mess to clean up after.

I'd argue we have lots of regulatory agencies and regulations but very little effective regulation.

This is why the SEC failed to see through Madoff's ponzi...how could they when we have an investment banking system riddled with derivatives/shadow banking?

http://www.forbes.com/2008/12/17/madoff-sec-cox-business-wallst-cx_em_bw_1217ponzi.html

This is why the FDA is out pulling guns on the Amish people who tried to sell small quantities of non-homogenized milk....but millions of metric tons of toxic toothpaste, dry-wall, tainted peanut butter and jalapeños have made it's way onto our shelves.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/apr/28/feds-sting-amish-farmer-selling-raw-milk-locally/

This is why the USDA fines a small household 4 million dollars for selling a couple dozen bunny rabbits a year....but it takes 7 months for the USDA to confirm whether a huge cattle distributer had a valid case of MAD COW.

http://www.naturalnews.com/011661.html#ixzz1Nyo3AJeC

It's the same reason that the DOJ spent over 12 million dollars to toss Tommy Chong in jail for his son selling a bong.....

On....and on I can go............

Proving my point that regulations are great...but only effective regulation. Which I see very little of.....What I am seeing today is a complete fuckup of priorities across the board in our government today (I should know, I see it hourly at work).

We currently have regulatory agencies that either work for, or are manipulated by, big businesses, who then use all of their resources and power to actively combat and fight against smaller, far more insignificant, entities.

If that's what you are asking for...and demand more of...then great. We desperately need more government and far more (misdirected) regulation......However, I'd argue we need a massive downsizing of government and a complete refocusing on WHAT their fucking prirorites actually are.

For years people have professed that these regulatory agencies are so ineffective because of budget cuts and downsizing....all the while I'd argue that it can't be when they are pursuing such insignificant and absurd tasking priorities. How the fuck do they even open these case files against small households if they are so heavily and desperately understaffed?

The fact remains, in my mind, that they are so ineffective because they are too focused on chasing after all the wrong people and incorrect objectives.

It's the same reason we have unsolved murders taking place while we simultaneously have old ladies being ticketed for jaywalking on abandoned roadways. I'd argue that the cops are also keeping the american people safe in about the same fashion that our government regulatory agencies are today.


Post edited by Mockery at 5/31/2011 8:53:53 PM

Originally posted by: Mockery
"The Cartel"

love this one.

you guys are being way to civil to be arguing in the cesspool, get some insults in here dammit!