hey GC, you know who this woman reminds me of? ever see thay movie 'FARGO"? she reminds me of the female cop.same mannerisms, same accent, same small town, country bumpkin effect. i expected to see her wheel in a tray full of pumpkin pies any moment. she could stick a bayonet on the end of one of her assault rifles and use it to share the pies. she reminds me of those people i see in times square; the ones from bumfuk, idaho. the guys who get whiplash looking upwards at 12 story buildings. i predict that we are in for some laughs. i am actually glad they chose her; it will make for interesting times, no doubt.

The Republicans will not have to steal the election. Because there is no way in hell that this uppity urban liberal socialist will get elected to the White House. The Democrats be smokin' da crack!!

From 1954 until 1978, 24 years the Democrats controlled both houses of congress

1952 and 1980 they were split

from 1982 until the election in 1994 the Democrats controlled both Houses - 12 more years

Freom 1996 until 2006 the Republicans controlled both Houses- 10 years

2006 - present Democrats- additional 2 years

So recap;

a total of four years of split congressional control

Democrats have had control for a combined total of 38 years

Republicans have had control of both houses for a total of 10 years

Now without going into party affiliation, who is best blah, blah. We have almost 50 years of fixing social security, this program for the poor, this program for the sick, this program for the homeless, more police on the streets without funding, countless non-binding whatevers. Civil rights and rascism issues. And we are STILL fixing the same issues. The last company that I worked for if something had to be fixed you might be lucky to get 50 hours to get it done. My question is "Why do we put up with this Cr@p" There are problems on both side of the isle and THAT needs to be fixed. One of the issues that Dread and I discussed at length is taxes. One reason the CONGRESS does not want a set VAT or flat tax is they can not fool with it year after year and it would bring some accountabliity to the way the government operates. If you dont have it you cant spend it. a guy that makes a million with a 10% flat tax would pay way more than some schmuck who makes 60,000

Look at the facts;
"In the 435-member House of Representatives, 123 elected officials earned at least one million dollars last year, according to recently released financial records made public each year.

Next door in the ornate Senate, whose blue-blooded pedigree includes a Kennedy and a Rockefeller, one in three people are millionaires. By comparison, less than one per cent of Americans make seven-figure incomes. "

You tell me who is out of touch with the american people.

I have three children in school and a newborn (oops) I have a good job and a nice house. I pay too much for gasoline and groceries like everybody else. The coast offshore California has oil that naturally seeps out of the sea floor but dont drill here is will upset my view of the ocean, a study concluded that a prime spot for a windfarm would be on an offshore island / sanbar off of Massachusetts but it was squashed because it blocked the view of the Kenedy compound. Al Gore spends more on his monthly electric bill than most people make in a month, but he wants me to drive a two seater hybrid as he get on a loaned corporate jet to fly by himself to Finland to pick up some award in his fight against global warming.

They said the Alaskan pipeline would devistate the Caribou population, wrong there are more Caribou than ever before. The ANWAR holds untold barrels of oil but the enviromentalists and CONGRESS says we will upset some form of Lichen. There has not been a refinery built in the US in over 35 years. The east Coast of the US and both coasts of Florida have both proven Oil & Gas deposits, cant dril there either and there are some folks in CONGRESS feel that we DO NOT PAY ENOUGH for Gasoline. WHAT!!!!!!

Who is stealing what from whom..........

fragrante, the term 'uppity" connotes. might you be saying "uppity nigger"? you can say it, you are grown. as to texasshoe and the consumption tax; is that what you want to see? at present, they have worked it out , roughly, to be a percentage between 23 and 61% . different think tanks have different numbers. the problem is that it is highly regressive. secondly, it is a tax on consumption, not on wealth.( which is why republicans like it) . but, as we all know, don't we, that if you tax an activity, you reduce it. so, tax consumption and watch commerce take a dump!

by the way, texasshoe, explain this for me. you say that a millionaire would pay far more in taxes than a guy earning 60,000, based on VAT. how do you figure that? so you are saying that when i buy a car for 10,000, and some rich guy buys the same car for 10,000, he pays far more taxes than i do?

hey, GC, you gave me a scolding for being angry today. now do you see why? what do you think the term 'uppity urban " is intended to mean? you ever heard of an "uppity " white man? i defend fragrante's right to be a racist, but do not try to restrain me from giving back! you know me.

Why is it when an idea is brought forth such as the two examples that I cited the left always says "That wont work", but they never offer an alternative. There was also proposed a national sales tax, everyone purchases items, food, gas, property, school supplies you name it. But as you mentioned "it does not tax wealth" Why does it have to tax wealth? Are you and others like you so shallow as to be jealous someone has wealth and you do not? Or is it the fact that you feel the need to redistribute what is not yours or mine. Without "wealthy" individuals who start businesses and employee people where would this country be. The national sales tax is consumption and the VAT is Value added on big ticket itemns as boats cars over a certian value etc. Now I would venture to say that most "wealthy" people do not go out and by an $11,000 dollar Chevy Cobalt to drive around in, but say an $70,000 Mercedes and the last time I checked there was not one of those in my driveway

texasshoe, every time i am inclined to lean to the idea that you might get it, you fall back into the mire. who says that taxing wealth is solely redistribution? besides, if you tax consumption, then you restrict it. and , not because a millionaire does not drive a chevy cobalt, that does not mean he might not buy one for his kids! the point is, the tax is regressive!!! it has nothing to do with quantity; the issue is burden. the burden is the normal market basket. we are not talking about him buying an audi and me buying a kia. it is the MARKET BASKET!!!!!!! when he and i go to the supermarket!!!!!. not because he is rich means he does not eat eggs, bread and milk, and pork chops. he might be richer than i am, but , when he washes his dishes, there is no section in the supermarket for "rich guy's detergent".forget the yacht buying; it is not a part of the equation. he might buy a yacht, as well as he might hoard the money. what if he consumes outside ? let us say he spends 450, 000 on a house in casa de campo? what then? and, if the tax base is say 40%, do you understand the degree of black marketeering which will take place? you think you have seen tax loopholes? you think that the tax guys could ever collect this money? at least , with pay as you earn, there is a chance of collecting something!

Like you asked me once, explain it. When you just say it wont work, there are other bone heads on the boards you will say that and not know why. I agree with the loop holes and tax on INCOME, hell I have no problem paying a huge tax on monies I earn (ha, ha) if I win the lottery. The President, whomever it is or might be, only signs the bill into law, it is the congress who makes and shapes the things that affectt us. But I regress as to our discussion of the other day. Why if we have a multitude of programs in place already, fix the ones that need fixing, get rid of duplicates or ones that have become unmanageable but do not heap another one on top of a broken one.

why on God's earth do republicans seek their information from such limited sources, and therefore pigeonhole their intellects? texasshoe, you sound like you got your info straight from neil boortz, and stopped there. why don't you guys read other sources when you seek info? there are several think tanks dealing with this subject; Brookings, among others, has pored over the subject at great length. i have very little regard for people who do not have a basic foundation in the discipline, read one guy, then launch off into argumentative diatribes, almost pontificating! this is not a matter of my opinion, nor yours. economics 101 teaches that consumption taxes are regressive. that is written in stone. political pundits cannot change that!