1 - 10 Next
In response to:

Dear Mitt and Jeb: No, Thanks

Edward327 Wrote: Oct 24, 2014 3:12 PM
The "Fair Tax" has some problems: 1. Once the precedent has been set that there can be a nation Sales Tax, there isn't anything really stopping some future Democrat (or Republican) Congress from passing a Value Added Tax (VAT) to all goods prior to the sales tax. 2. It would be cost prohibitive for the US government to set up to collect a sales tax, and it would be unconstitutional to try and force the states and territories to collect it. So the tax would have to be higher to pay off the states to collect it. Instead of one IRS, you'd have 50 plus. Yes the states do this now, in varying degrees depending on how hard up for money (read Blue States) the state is currently. But they would really have to crack the proverbial whip to make sure that Uncle Sugar got every cent coming to the government. And then there is the issue of no state sales tax, how much would Uncle have to pay to get those states to set up to collect? A flat tax would be simpler, could be collected by salary deductions for most taxpayers, with whatever amount is exempt paid directly to the worker before any tax is collected. Workers with two jobs might have to come up with cash on April 15th if neither job paid the exempt amount, but both combined exceeded it. Personally I'd favor having to pay the taxes without withholding, that way people would KNOW how much government is costing them, but people aren't responsible enough to do that, unlike Americans prior to WW II (when Roosevelt and his Congress put in withholding as a way to pay for the war costs without waiting a year for the money to be paid in one chunk). Banks, stock brokers, etc. now deal with income tax, the flat tax wouldn't be a problem for non-earned income.
This is very different from the normal Absentee Ballot. Here we are talking about one of the three states which have ALL mail in ballot elections. If you live and are registered to vote in CO, you receive a ballot in the mail. You fill out that ballot and return it in the mail. You do not appear at a polling station (and I'm not sure how many polling stations remain for those who do not wish to vote by mail). The ballot is assigned to you. If you throw the ballot away, anyone who finds that ballot can vote "for you" and the state will count the ballot as being your vote. Obviously there is no Voter ID, as there is no way to verify that the person the ballot was mailed to is the person filling out the ballot. You can guess that the three states with all mail-in ballot elections are not "Red" states.
I would hope that a Republican controlled Legislature and Governor in CO would eliminate the mail in ballot to eliminate this particular fraud. Unfortunately I don't have a real belief that will happen.
So it's a myth that it's a myth? Couldn't resist.
In response to:

Federal Persecutors

Edward327 Wrote: Oct 22, 2014 12:07 PM
Exactly right. "...and repealing most of it would lesson the problem." Lessen, spell check is not your friend.
In response to:

Who's Afraid of 'Rocky Mountain Heist'?

Edward327 Wrote: Oct 17, 2014 12:47 PM
This deserves a few hundred "upvotes".
In response to:

Who's Afraid of 'Rocky Mountain Heist'?

Edward327 Wrote: Oct 17, 2014 12:45 PM
I'd have to oppose efforts to eliminate all absentee ballots other than military. Some people simply must travel for their job, others are too ill to go to the polls. I've had elderly neighbors who could not easily travel to the polls (and I'm getting closer to the age they were then). Allowing just any excuse for voting absentee is not good, everyone voting by postcard, with the postcard sent to them to mark and return - as the Liberal legislatures have provided is insanity. At best postcard voting encourages those who couldn't care less to vote.
In response to:

Local or National Elections?

Edward327 Wrote: Oct 14, 2014 8:50 AM
Does Dr. Sowell mean to say that voting for a guy who's career path is pizza delivery guy and losing political candidacies (NC US Senate) would essentially be a vote for the Democrat? I agree completely. If the so-called Libertarian in the recent VA Senate race, who was supported financially by Democrats, had not been in the race the Democrat likely would not have won. In SD former Republican Larry Pressler, who still supports His Imperial Executiveness and Obamacare, may be drawing votes from the Democrat, but is apparently drawing enough fooled Republican votes at present to be a threat to what was expected to be a sure Republican Senate seat. Pressler will not say who he would caucus with if elected. Which issue brings us to the KS Senate race. The "Independent" in the KS Senate race is being supported by the KS Democrat party, to the extent of convincing the elected candidate of the Democrat voters to withdraw from the race and the Party going to court to force the KS Secretary of State to remove the Democrat's name from the ballot, making it easier for the alleged "Independent" to compete with the Republican. And he has run previously as a Democrat. He isn't the third candidate, but he certainly is no Independent. He has refused to say with which party he would caucus if elected, though the loser in the Republican primary, Dr. Milton Wolf, offered to support him if he would commit to caucusing with the Republicans if elected. He refused.
In response to:

Local or National Elections?

Edward327 Wrote: Oct 14, 2014 8:34 AM
Wish we had the ability to "upvote", your post deserves lots of upvotes.
In response to:

Local or National Elections?

Edward327 Wrote: Oct 14, 2014 8:33 AM
I believe the number of bills is about 300, give or take a few.
1 - 10 Next