Economy
See other Economy Articles
Title: So How Did the Bush Tax Cuts Work Out for the Economy?
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://www.tax.com/taxcom/taxblog.n ... alink/CHAS-89LPZ9?OpenDocument
Published: Sep 25, 2010
Author: David Cay Johnston
Post Date: 2010-09-25 13:13:21 by Skip Intro
Keywords: None
Views: 146241
Comments: 184
The 2008 income tax data are now in, so we can assess the fulfillment of the Republican promise that tax cuts would produce widespread prosperity by looking at all the years of the George W. Bush presidency. Just as they did in 2000, the Republicans are running this year on an economic platform of tax cuts, especially making the tax cuts permanent for the richest among us. So how did the tax cuts work out? My analysis of the new data, with all figures in 2008 dollars: Total income was $2.74 trillion less during the eight Bush years than if incomes had stayed at 2000 levels. That much additional income would have more than made up for the lack of demand that keeps us mired in the Great Recession. That would mean no need for a stimulus, although it would not have affected the last administration's interfering with market capitalism by bailing out irresponsible Wall Streeters instead of letting the market determine their fortunes. In only two years was total income up, but even when those years are combined they exceed the declines in only one of the other six years. Even if we limit the analysis by starting in 2003, when the dividend and capital gains tax cuts began, through the peak year of 2007, the result is still less income than at the 2000 level. Total income was down $951 billion during those four years. Average incomes fell. Average taxpayer income was down $3,512, or 5.7 percent, in 2008 compared with 2000, President Bush's own benchmark year for his promises of prosperity through tax cuts. Had incomes stayed at 2000 levels, the average taxpayer would have earned almost $21,000 more over those eight years. That's almost $50 per week. The changes in average and total incomes are detailed on the next page in Table 1, the first of four tables analyzing the whole data. Now that we have looked at the whole eight-year period, what does the new data show about 2008, the worst recession ear since the 1930s, show when compared to the peak year of 2007, when the average taxpayer made $63,096, which was 2.5 percent more than in 2000. In only two of the eight Bush years, 2006 and 2007, were average incomes higher than in 2000, but the gains were highly concentrated at the top. Of the total increase in income in 2007 over that in 2005, nearly 30 percent went to taxpayers who made $1 million or more. Now surely some will say that it is not fair to saddle George W. Bush and those who supported his tax cuts with the economic figures from 2001 and 2008. The first would be on the theory that President Clinton should be charged for that year (just as Bush should be charged with 2009, the first year of the Obama administration). The second is on less solid ground, but let's consider it for the sake of argument. Just measuring the second through seventh years we find that total income was still nearly $2 trillion lower than if 2000 level income continued. Stacking the deck in President George W. Bush's favor does not change the awful performance or even soften it much. The tax cuts cost $1.8 trillion in the first eight years, according to an analysis by the Tax Policy Center, whose reliability the last administration went out of its way to praise. Those cuts were heavily weighted toward the people candidate George W. Bush famously called "haves and the have-mores . . . some people call you the elite. I call you my base." In the two years since 2008, the cuts' total cost grew to $2.3 trillion, the Tax Policy Center estimated. One of every eight dollars of the tax cuts went to the 1 in 1,000 taxpayers in the top tenth of 1 percent, the annual threshold for which was in the $2 million range throughout the last administration. The only other large beneficiary was parents with children under 17 who make enough to pay income taxes, thanks to the $1,000-per-child tax credit Republicans started championing in the mid-1990s. Now let's look at wages, the source of most people's income. In 2008 the average taxpayer made $58,000. That was $5,100 less than in 2007, a decline of 8.1 percent. The number of taxpayers reporting any wages in 2008 was 1.26 million fewer than in 2007, a scary figure when you consider that most people do not expect to be out of work for an entire year and that the population grew by more than a percentage point. In August 42 percent of the unemployed -- 6.2 million people -- had been out of work for 27 weeks or more, the Bureau of Labor Statistics said. The average for all jobless workers was 33.6 weeks of unemployment, the equivalent of going from New Year's Day through August 23 without a paycheck. The number of taxpayers with incomes below $100,000 with any wage income fell in 2008 by 1.8 million. Because married couples file many tax returns, this means more than 2 million people who worked in 2007 earned no wages in 2008. Total wages in 2008 fell by nearly 4 percent, compared with a year earlier, for the 87 percent of Americans whose total income was less than $100,000. Since 2000, population grew more than wages. Those reporting negative incomes quadrupled from less than 600,000 in 2000 to nearly 2.5 million in 2008. Their losses worsened slightly from -$64,000 on average to -$66,000. The number of workers earning $500,000 or more in total income also fell, by just under 100,000 (or nearly 12 percent), but their average wage of $718,000 is still more than the average American earns in a decade at 2008 levels. The number of people reporting incomes of $200,000 or more but legally paying no federal income taxes skyrocketed in the second Bush term. A decade ago it was fewer than 1,500 taxpayers; in 2000 it was about 2,300. This high-income, tax-free group jumped to more than 11,000 in 2007 and then doubled in 2008 to more than 22,000. In 2008 nearly 1 in every 200 high-income taxpayers paid no federal income tax, up from about 1 in 1,500 in 1998. The share of high incomes that were untaxed increased more than sevenfold to one dollar of every $166. The Statistics of Income data on tax-free, high incomes severely understate economic reality because they exclude deferral accounts, including those of hedge fund managers with billion-dollar incomes who can legally report no current income and borrow against their untaxed gains to live tax free. Table 1. 2008 Average Incomes Fell Well Below 2000 Level The one bright spot in the SOI data at Table 1.4 was that the number of people making $100,000 to $200,000 grew significantly between 2007 and 2008. Their ranks increased by 393,465, or 3 percent, to more than 13.8 million taxpayers. This truly is good news, because most of the increase had to be people who worked their way up into six-figure incomes from 2007 to 2008. We know this because fewer than 160,000 taxpayers fell out of the $200,000-and-up income groups. Even if we assume that every one of them fell into the $100,000-$200,000 class, that still leaves 233,000 taxpayers who joined this income group. These 233,000 taxpayers must be people who increased their incomes enough to get them above the $100,000 line. And we know that they did it mostly through becoming more valuable workers, because this group relies on paychecks for more than 77 percent of its income. But despite that one sliver of good news about low six-figure incomes, the data show overwhelmingly that the Republican-sponsored tax cuts damaged our nation. Examining performance against the promises, what do we find? Overwhelming evidence that the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 made us much worse off. Table 2. More Taxpayers, Less Revenue Ignore the cynics who say the Republican leaders on Capitol Hill, in Wasilla, and on the airwaves care only about the rich. I don't believe that. I think they are captive to economic theories few of them understand and that are simplistic in the extreme. I take them at their word, that they truly believe their policies will produce broad benefits for all, but accepting that does not diminish the fact that the policies these Republicans promote also produce massive tax savings for the superrich who finance their campaigns. The question to ask is whether their policies worked as promised. Have they even come close? Where is the prosperity -- and where was it in the Bush years, when massive increases in both military and discretionary spending provided a chronic stimulus to the economy? Table 3. 2007 to 2008: Fewer Jobs, Less Money (Mostly) The hard, empirical facts: The tax cuts did not spur investment. Job growth in the George W. Bush years was one-seventh that of the Clinton years. Nixon and Ford did better than Bush on jobs. Wages fell during the last administration. Average incomes fell. The number of Americans in poverty, as officially measured, hit a 16-year high last year of 43.6 million, though a National Academy of Sciences study says that the real poverty figure is closer to 51 million. Food banks are swamped. Foreclosure signs are everywhere. Americans and their governments are drowning in debt. And at the nexus of tax and healthcare, Republican ideas perpetuate a cruel and immoral system that rations healthcare -- while consuming every sixth dollar in the economy and making businesses, especially small businesses, less efficient and less profitable. This is economic madness. It is policy divorced from empirical evidence. It is insanity because the policies are illusory and delusional. The evidence is in, and it shows beyond a shadow of a reasonable doubt that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts failed to achieve the promised goals. So why in the world is anyone giving any credence to the insistence by Republican leaders that tax cuts, more tax cuts, and deeper tax cuts are the remedy to our economic woes? Why are they not laughingstocks? It is one thing for Fox News to treat these policies as successful, but what of the rest of what Sarah Palin calls with some justification the "lamestream media," who treat these policies as worthy ideas? The Republican leadership is like the doctors who believed bleeding cured the sick. When physicians bled George Washington, he got worse, so they increased the treatment until they bled him to death. Our government, the basis of our freedoms, is spewing red ink, and the Republican solution is to spill ever more. Those who ignore evidence and pledge blind faith in policy based on ideological fantasy are little different from the clerics who made Galileo Galilei confess that the sun revolves around the earth. The Capitol Hill and media Republicans differ only in not threatening death to those who deny their dogma. How much more evidence do we need that we made terrible and costly mistakes in 2001 and 2003? Figure 1. High-Income Paying Zero Tax 1998-2008 The number of individual income tax returns showing adjusted gross income of $200,000 or more, but no income tax liability, has been rising rapidly in recent years. Table 4. 2008: Fewer Jobs, Lower Pay (With Exceptions in Bold)
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-86) not displayed.
.
.
.
#87. To: Capitalist Eric (#85)
YOU LOVE THE GOVERNMENT... I thought you were smarter than that.
I cited the Internal Revenue Code as it exists in US Code. M. Randolph Hamilton Who the fuck is he? A blogger? The term income is defined nowhere in Title 26 of the US Code, which is the law that relates to the "income" tax. Even your blogger agrees that I cited US Code. a tax on property would be a direct, unapportioned tax that the US Constitution does not allow The 16th amendment removed the apportionment requirement for direct taxes. None of the cases that you cited were wage cases.
Show me a case in which "labor" has been defined as "property" with a source and a link or STFU. [snicker] Thanks. That said, it's not the "property" that's being taxed...it's the income derived from it.
Show me the court case where that is stated. Bob and weave, dumbshit. You're DONE,, and you know it. All your manipulations won't change that. Oh, and BTW, the fact that you call me an asshole, I take as a compliment. Being called an asshole, for shining the light of truth on a worthless cockroach like you, I thoroughly ENJOY. Being called names for it- by the roaches- makes me feel all warm inside. Now that you've entertained me, and I've had my fun, you're back to bozo. Bye, shit-head. The current members of the "You're a worthless sack of shit" list includes WAR, calcon, e_type_jack-off, mad-dog (more like rabidly stupid), ibluafartsky and the fascism-shill no gnu taxes (aka 400 bucks, happyfunball, 50yardline, etc, etc.) If you're on the list, don't bother writing, 'cause you're a waste of flesh.
Really? WHERE, exactly, does it say that in the Constitution? Do you understand the words "excise" and "apportionment?" Get educated, and then come talk with the adults...
The current members of the "You're a worthless sack of shit" list includes WAR, calcon, e_type_jack-off, mad-dog (more like rabidly stupid), ibluafartsky and the fascism-shill no gnu taxes (aka 400 bucks, happyfunball, 50yardline, etc, etc.) If you're on the list, don't bother writing, 'cause you're a waste of flesh.
I was checking the constitution and it said nothing about case law. It said the legislature made the law and it only became law if the President signed it. Case law equals usurption.
It's in the plain language of the amendment, moron. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
Amendments only become part of the constitution of 2/3 of states, 2/3 of senate and 2/3 of house vote for it. Can you give me a list of the Senators and congressmen who voted for it? I don't think 2/3 voted for it. Also could you tell me which states ratified it. I don't think 2/3 did that either.
Or was it 3/4 of the states. Either way could you give me a list?
Check again in Articles III and IV and in Amendment VII. Prior to the Civil War, the SCOTUS was more likely to rule in a case of common law than of Consitutional.
You staunchly defend the practice of the government STEALING money from my pocket. You can wrap it up in fantastic rationalizations, say "oh, it's to feed the poor widdle babies..." Of course, that means it's harder for me to feed MY babies... And I have to earn more money, to support my family with MY money. But you JUST DON'T CARE. What matters is that YOU feel good, as you steal MY money, to give to someone else who didn't EARN it. You don't THINK. You EMOTE. And you are one STUPID woman...
The current members of the "You're a worthless sack of shit" list includes WAR, calcon, e_type_jack-off, mad-dog (more like rabidly stupid), ibluafartsky and the fascism-shill no gnu taxes (aka 400 bucks, happyfunball, 50yardline, etc, etc.) If you're on the list, don't bother writing, 'cause you're a waste of flesh.
Of course I am. I've humiliated you once again. You can't defend that bullshit so you run and hide. So bye, assshole.
I have read it. Can you cut and paste the relevant part? Please.
Can we keep the nonsensical conspiracy stuff out of this? The 16th amendment is part of the USCON. Like it or not.
Also could you tell me which states ratified it. I don't think 2/3 did that either. Oh, SHIIIITTT...... Damn, dude... You're really gonna' make him pop a fuse, trying to twist out of THAT one.... LOL. A friend of mine has been collecting documenation on this question, for decades... An entire office filled with hard-copies, correspondances, etc, regarding this... I'm tempted to take him off the bozo-list, just to watch his ass twist in the wind... Nah..... I've already had my fun for the day. LOL.
The current members of the "You're a worthless sack of shit" list includes WAR, calcon, e_type_jack-off, mad-dog (more like rabidly stupid), ibluafartsky and the fascism-shill no gnu taxes (aka 400 bucks, happyfunball, 50yardline, etc, etc.) If you're on the list, don't bother writing, 'cause you're a waste of flesh.
Article III establishes a judicial branch. Any decision made by a court is precedent to all that follows. And while precedent can and is sometimes overturned, it's rare that it is. Precedent, aka stare decisis, is all case law and we are bound by the decision. Article IV recognizes "judicial acts" and establishes comity thereunto between the states - it's part of the so called "gay marriage" controversy. Article VII protects the right to jury in cases of common law [over $20] and that the courts are bound by the decisions made in common law. The whole of common law is case law.
They're going to try, anyway... I believe THIS is what mcgowanjm was referring to, on another thread... http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=13476&Disp=1#C1
The current members of the "You're a worthless sack of shit" list includes WAR, calcon, e_type_jack-off, mad-dog (more like rabidly stupid), ibluafartsky and the fascism-shill no gnu taxes (aka 400 bucks, happyfunball, 50yardline, etc, etc.) If you're on the list, don't bother writing, 'cause you're a waste of flesh.
According to the United States Government Printing Office, the following states ratified the amendment: 1. Alabama (August 10, 1909) Ratification (by the requisite 36 states) was completed on February 3, 1913 with the ratification by Delaware. The amendment was subsequently ratified by the following states, bringing the total number of ratifying states to forty-two of the forty-eight then existing: 37. New Mexico (February 3, 1913) The legislatures of the following states rejected the amendment without ever subsequently ratifying it: Connecticut The legislatures of the following states never considered the proposed amendment: Florida
Not sure but I went through this with him early on here. It may have been over the 14th...either way...shine on Harvest Moon...
Wrong again, Stone. Two thirds of both houses are needed to propose an amendment. It then requires 3/4 of the states to ratify it.
I've now done it once and I'm done.
You can't defend that bullshit so you run and hide. Uh-HUH. Capitalist Eric: You're DONE. The fight is mine.. DwarF: 'Tis but a SCRATCH... I've had worse... Translation: "Oh. Oh, I see. Running away, eh? You yellow bastards! Come back here and take what's coming to you. I'll bite your legs off!" LOL.
The current members of the "You're a worthless sack of shit" list includes WAR, calcon, e_type_jack-off, mad-dog (more like rabidly stupid), ibluafartsky and the fascism-shill no gnu taxes (aka 400 bucks, happyfunball, 50yardline, etc, etc.) If you're on the list, don't bother writing, 'cause you're a waste of flesh.
Your large fonts and bolding coupled with underlining has me thinking twice about what you tax nuts say. Have you got a newsletter?
"Were you ever in the music or song writing business?" ... e_type_jagoff to Mudboy lol ..... AND ....... "But his decent into vile absurdity is still actually kind of sad and pitiful really" .... mad doggie
Not to mention the CAPS.
"Were you ever in the music or song writing business?" ... e_type_jagoff to Mudboy lol ..... AND ....... "But his decent into vile absurdity is still actually kind of sad and pitiful really" .... mad doggie
Uh-HUH. The victors write the history books. And this completely avoids the question already posed, which (I'm shocked, SHOCKED) war completely ignored: If you have such a command of this issue, you have that information at your fingertips, yes??? Perhaps you'd care to provide it? And I can take it back to my friend, and see if it matches with his records and documents (though the double-checking of this may take weeks).
The current members of the "You're a worthless sack of shit" list includes WAR, calcon, e_type_jack-off, mad-dog (more like rabidly stupid), ibluafartsky and the fascism-shill no gnu taxes (aka 400 bucks, happyfunball, 50yardline, etc, etc.) If you're on the list, don't bother writing, 'cause you're a waste of flesh.
???
The current members of the "You're a worthless sack of shit" list includes WAR, calcon, e_type_jack-off, mad-dog (more like rabidly stupid), ibluafartsky and the fascism-shill no gnu taxes (aka 400 bucks, happyfunball, 50yardline, etc, etc.) If you're on the list, don't bother writing, 'cause you're a waste of flesh.
LOL. Predictable as always, aren't you? Argumentum ad hominem. Did you ever graduate high-school, or did they let you slip by with a GED?
The current members of the "You're a worthless sack of shit" list includes WAR, calcon, e_type_jack-off, mad-dog (more like rabidly stupid), ibluafartsky and the fascism-shill no gnu taxes (aka 400 bucks, happyfunball, 50yardline, etc, etc.) If you're on the list, don't bother writing, 'cause you're a waste of flesh.
I no have education. I have inspiration. If I was educated I would be a damn fool.
"Were you ever in the music or song writing business?" ... e_type_jagoff to Mudboy lol ..... AND ....... "But his decent into vile absurdity is still actually kind of sad and pitiful really" .... mad doggie
As I suspected. "The only thing more expensive than education is ignorance." Too bad it doesn't make up for your ignorance. Said Bob Marley... You prefer being an ignorant fool. Typical.
The current members of the "You're a worthless sack of shit" list includes WAR, calcon, e_type_jack-off, mad-dog (more like rabidly stupid), ibluafartsky and the fascism-shill no gnu taxes (aka 400 bucks, happyfunball, 50yardline, etc, etc.) If you're on the list, don't bother writing, 'cause you're a waste of flesh.
Your list isn't accurate and doesn't take into account many things. It doesn't take on ex post facto law. Do you support ex post facto law? It doesn't take into account that a natural born citizen has to be president.
Take it up with the freedom loving founding fathers who authored the Constitution and those who ratified it. No doubt taxation under Articles of Confederation would have been more to your liking, however it just wasn't working out. The Constitutional Convention addressed the issue of an adequately funded federal government by expanding the authority of the central government to tax. It was a survival issue. But you JUST DON'T CARE. What matters is that YOU feel good, as you steal MY money, to give to someone else who didn't EARN it. You don't THINK. You EMOTE. You ain't no slacker in the emoting department yourself. It appears to me that you want all the blessings, protections, and opportunity of a civilized community without paying the price.
You have YET to answer my question: Do you understand the words "excise" and "apportionment?"
The current members of the "You're a worthless sack of shit" list includes WAR, calcon, e_type_jack-off, mad-dog (more like rabidly stupid), ibluafartsky and the fascism-shill no gnu taxes (aka 400 bucks, happyfunball, 50yardline, etc, etc.) If you're on the list, don't bother writing, 'cause you're a waste of flesh.
Weren't you putting me on bozo? Buck up the case law wherein labor is defined as "property" and answer the other goddam questions.
You don't know SHIT about what I want.
The current members of the "You're a worthless sack of shit" list includes WAR, calcon, e_type_jack-off, mad-dog (more like rabidly stupid), ibluafartsky and the fascism-shill no gnu taxes (aka 400 bucks, happyfunball, 50yardline, etc, etc.) If you're on the list, don't bother writing, 'cause you're a waste of flesh.
I do...what of it.
You've got stuff really mixed up there. The 16th Amendment was written as a direct response to the SCOTUS decision in Pollock v. Farmer's Loan & Trust Co. which said that tax on income derived from property (something one owns) is a direct tax and subject to the apportionment rule. The question of a tax on income derived from work was not an issue.
Yes, do you?
I can only surmise from what you write - the words you use.
Feel free to buck up your own list. A constitutional amendment is exactly that...a change to the constitution via amendment. That is not an ex post facto law. And that said, an ex post facto law is one that institutes a present penalty for a past behavior...i.e. you drove drunk in 1988 when it was a summary offense...in 2010 it's a Class D felony and is applied retroactively to you.
Marley said the whole thing. And you won't be able to be educated until you dump all your quotes, stop reading Lew and start thinking for yourself. I doubt that'll happen.
"Were you ever in the music or song writing business?" ... e_type_jagoff to Mudboy lol ..... AND ....... "But his decent into vile absurdity is still actually kind of sad and pitiful really" .... mad doggie
Chuckles...
Comments (128 - 184) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestAha. I understand, now.
#88. To: Capitalist Eric (#84)
You cited the Internal Revenue Code.
#89. To: Capitalist Eric (#84)
(Edited)
the word 'income' as used in the Sixteenth Amendment and in the Income Tax Act we are considering does not include the gain from capital realized by a single isolated sale of property,
#90. To: war (#88)
The 16th amendment removed the apportionment requirement for direct taxes.
The term income is defined nowhere in Title 26 of the US Code, which is the law that relates to the "income" tax.
Mad dog gets
"calibrated..."
#91. To: lucysmom (#86)
The Constitution gives government the right to tax income derived from work (wages).
Mad dog gets
"calibrated..."
#92. To: war (#82)
case law
#93. To: Capitalist Eric (#90)
Show me the court case where that is stated.
#94. To: war (#88)
The 16th amendment removed the apportionment requirement for direct taxes.
#95. To: All (#94)
#96. To: A K A Stone (#92)
I was checking the constitution and it said nothing about case law.
#97. To: lucysmom (#87)
(Edited)
I thought you were smarter than that.
Mad dog gets
"calibrated..."
#98. To: Capitalist Eric (#90)
Now that you've entertained me, and I've had my fun, you're back to bozo.
#99. To: war (#96)
#100. To: A K A Stone (#94)
#101. To: A K A Stone (#94)
Can you give me a list of the Senators and congressmen who voted for it? I don't think 2/3 voted for it.
Mad dog gets
"calibrated..."
#102. To: A K A Stone (#99)
(Edited)
#103. To: A K A Stone, mcgowanjm (#81)
...we better pay or they will come and kill us or take all our stuff away and imprison us.
Mad dog gets
"calibrated..."
#104. To: A K A Stone (#94)
Also could you tell me which states ratified it. I don't think 2/3 did that either.
2. Kentucky (February 8, 1910)
3. South Carolina (February 19, 1910)
4. Illinois (March 1, 1910)
5. Mississippi (March 7, 1910)
6. Oklahoma (March 10, 1910)
7. Maryland (April 8, 1910)
8. Georgia (August 3, 1910)
9. Texas (August 16, 1910)
10. Ohio (January 19, 1911)
11. Idaho (January 20, 1911)
12. Oregon (January 23, 1911)
13. Washington (January 26, 1911)
14. Montana (January 27, 1911)
15. Indiana (January 30, 1911)
16. California (January 31, 1911)
17. Nevada (January 31, 1911)
18. South Dakota (February 1, 1911)
19. Nebraska (February 9, 1911)
20. North Carolina (February 11, 1911)
21. Colorado (February 15, 1911)
22. North Dakota (February 17, 1911)
23. Michigan (February 23, 1911)
24. Iowa (February 24, 1911)
25. Kansas (March 2, 1911)
26. Missouri (March 16, 1911)
27. Maine (March 31, 1911)
28. Tennessee (April 7, 1911)
29. Arkansas (April 22, 1911), after having previously rejected the amendment
30. Wisconsin (May 16, 1911)
31. New York (July 12, 1911)
32. Arizona (April 3, 1912)
33. Minnesota (June 11, 1912)
34. Louisiana (June 28, 1912)
35. West Virginia (January 31, 1913)
36. Delaware (February 3, 1913)
38. Wyoming (February 3, 1913)
39. New Jersey (February 4, 1913)
40. Vermont (February 19, 1913)
41. Massachusetts (March 4, 1913)
42. New Hampshire (March 7, 1913), after rejecting the amendment on March 2, 1911
Rhode Island
Utah
Pennsylvania
Virginia
#105. To: Skip Intro (#104)
(Edited)
#106. To: A K A Stone (#94)
Amendments only become part of the constitution of 2/3 of states, 2/3 of senate and 2/3 of house vote for it.
#107. To: war (#105)
Not sure but I went through this with him early on here. It may have been over the 14th...either way...shine on Harvest Moon...
#108. To: war (#98)
I've humiliated you once again.
So bye, assshole.
Mad dog gets
"calibrated..."
#109. To: Capitalist Eric (#90)
#110. To: Capitalist Eric (#108)
#111. To: Skip Intro (#104)
According to the United States Government Printing Office, the following states ratified the amendment...
Can you give me a list of the Senators and congressmen who voted for it? I don't think 2/3 voted for it.
Mad dog gets
"calibrated..."
#112. To: Abu el Banat (#110)
Not to mention the CAPS.
Mad dog gets
"calibrated..."
#113. To: Abu el Banat (#109)
Your large fonts and bolding coupled with underlining has me thinking twice about what you tax nuts say.
Mad dog gets
"calibrated..."
#114. To: Capitalist Eric (#113)
#115. To: Abu el Banat (#114)
I no have education.
-- Benjamin Franklin.I have inspiration.
If I was educated I would be a damn fool.
Mad dog gets
"calibrated..."
#116. To: Skip Intro (#104)
#117. To: Capitalist Eric (#97)
You staunchly defend the practice of the government STEALING money from my pocket.
#118. To: lucysmom (#117)
Mad dog gets
"calibrated..."
#119. To: Capitalist Eric (#108)
#120. To: lucysmom (#117)
It appears to me that you want all the blessings, protections, and opportunity of a civilized community without paying the price.
Mad dog gets
"calibrated..."
#121. To: Capitalist Eric (#118)
Do you understand the words "excise" and "apportionment?"
#122. To: Capitalist Eric (#80)
Income tax is an excise tax on the profit from ones' investments. This can only occur as a corporation, NOT as an individual...
#123. To: Capitalist Eric (#118)
Do you understand the words "excise" and "apportionment?"
#124. To: Capitalist Eric (#120)
You don't know SHIT about what I want.
#125. To: A K A Stone (#116)
(Edited)
Your list isn't accurate and doesn't take into account many things.
#126. To: Capitalist Eric (#115)
#127. To: Abu el Banat (#109)
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]