What must be done to Unite the Country

Act of Terrorism? Laughable
Honest Election? I haven't listened to any of Trumps BS. The election was in the hat as soon as Pelosi got the unlimited Mail In ballots. Whether that won it or not, I don't know. Did it have an effect, absolutely.
Rogue Cops killing innocent black people? How many of the "one of their own" were know to have rap sheets and past run ins with the Cops. How many of them were "hunted down" like your boy Lebron wants to claim? Unjustified killings of black people by white cops makes up such a small % of black killings every year that it shows how misguided their protests, riots, burning of public and private buildings, looting millions of dollars of property, etc. really are.

Keep laughing.

Merriam Webster will provide you the definition of Terrorism Taped admissions of many arrested will confirm that they stormed the capital at the implied suggestion of Trump. Don’t forget to add in the call of the terrorists to “ hang Mike Pence” because he wouldn’t do what Trump asked him to do. Pence didn’t not do it to dis Trump. He didn’t do it because he could not do it under the Constitution

Mail in voting. Trump has used mail in voting. McConnell mail in votes. It is a Generally accepted voting process

So the shooting of unarmed blacks by rogue cops is inconsequential when compared to total black deaths caused by other blacks so it’s ok for those cops?

I get it. There are people who have neither the maturity, willingness, intelligence to see the wisdom of reaching out for unity

It is clear Noah had a good reason for only permitting animals on his Arc
 
Last edited:
Merriam Webster will provide you the definition of Terrorism Taped admissions of many arrested will confirm that they stormed the capital at the implied suggestion of Trump. Don’t forget to add in the call of the terroridts to “ hang Mike Pence” because he wouldn’t do what Trump asked him to do. Pence didn’t not do it to dis Trump. He didn’t do it because he could not do it under the Constitution

Mail in voting. Trump has used mail in voting. McConnell mail in votes. It is a Generally accepted voting process

So the shooting of unarmed blacks by rogue cops is inconsequential when compared to total black deaths caused by other blacks so it’s ok for those cops?

I get it. There are people who have neither the maturity, willingness, intelligence to see the wisdom of reaching out for unity

It is clear Noah had a good reason for only permitting animals on his Arc
wow.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orangeslice13
For real Clark? The size of the Government is measured in $$. If you cut that in half as well as the current over reach in half you have solved A TON of problems.
Those that kneel at the foot of big centralized government will never understand that.
 
I’m all about cutting into the 1 trillion in defense spending. Also for allowing roll over of unused funds so that agencies don’t max out spending to avoid future budget reductions, etc

The whole thing needs to be cut and slashed.

Why do we need a federal EPA with almost 14,000 employees when every state in the union has an environmental enforcement division?
Why do we need a federal OSHA with almost 3,000 employees when every state in the union has an OSHA division?
Why do we need a department of education with almost 4,500 employees when every state AND county has a similar organization?
I can go on and on with this but when a federal regulatory agency becomes bloated with employees looking for advancement and to keep their jobs what do they do? Invent new regulations or procedures to justify their existence.
 
Merriam Webster will provide you the definition of Terrorism Taped admissions of many arrested will confirm that they stormed the capital at the implied suggestion of Trump. Don’t forget to add in the call of the terroridts to “ hang Mike Pence” because he wouldn’t do what Trump asked him to do. Pence didn’t not do it to dis Trump. He didn’t do it because he could not do it under the Constitution

Mail in voting. Trump has used mail in voting. McConnell mail in votes. It is a Generally accepted voting process

Stop with the falsehood that absentee ballots that have to be requested equate to the "mail in voting" where ballots were mailed to the last address on file that was used in several states for the first time.
 
I'm not exuding outrage. Just countering another poster. I did condemn the riots several times this summer in this forum
Maybe I should ask where is THE outrage? Errybody is all about George Floyd, and nobody gives a damn about the 20 year olds that are killed on a daily basis on Jackson and East End in Chicago... by BLACK people. Doesn't that seem a little strange to you? George Floyd was a worthless thug.... yet he is the face of all of this. Makes no sense other than the fact that it is used to stoke the fires of divide.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
Maybe I should ask where is THE outrage? Errybody is all about George Floyd, and nobody gives a damn about the 20 year olds that are killed on a daily basis on Jackson and East End in Chicago... by BLACK people. Doesn't that seem a little strange to you? George Floyd was a worthless thug.... yet he is the face of all of this. Makes no sense other than the fact that it is used to stoke the fires of divide.
I agree. The Floyd killing was tragic and deserved some outrage over the manner. That cop was held accountable as he should have been, but that should have quelled the continued misplaced outrage. It gets tiresome to see pundits perpetuating that one incident, which is why I steer away from MSM
 
  • Like
Reactions: MemphisVol77
No, I want to pay less taxes, however, a contribution from the 51% would be appreciated. Unity means that we all pull the rope with the same percentage of our capability. If I pull at 15%, I damn well want everyone else to pull at 15% too.
You're complaining about not enough people paying enough taxes. Ignoring the fact that a sizeable chunk of that "51%" are either young people working through high school or college or elderly people who have retired (as of a couple of years ago, only 11% of people aged 25-55 did not pay any net federal income tax), the only reason that people won't pay a federal income tax is because they aren't making enough money to make up for the tax deductions and breaks that they get (e.g. the standard deduction, EITC, child tax credit). For example, if you had a family with two kids, with one parent earning $50k per year and the other staying at home and watching the kids, they would not owe any federal income tax. In order to get those people to pay taxes, you have to start decreasing deductions and credits, which will increase taxes.
 
For real Clark? The size of the Government is measured in $$. If you cut that in half as well as the current over reach in half you have solved A TON of problems.
Maybe you've solved a ton of problems for the part of the country that wants that, but how does that possibly "unite the country"? Do you wanna go back and take a look at the thread title? I don't think you're on prompt for the question posed.
 
The whole thing needs to be cut and slashed.

Why do we need a federal EPA with almost 14,000 employees when every state in the union has an environmental enforcement division?
Why do we need a federal OSHA with almost 3,000 employees when every state in the union has an OSHA division?
Why do we need a department of education with almost 4,500 employees when every state AND county has a similar organization?
I can go on and on with this but when a federal regulatory agency becomes bloated with employees looking for advancement and to keep their jobs what do they do? Invent new regulations or procedures to justify their existence.

I understand the sentiment, but to use the EPA as one example- you need federal EPA to regulate environmental impact from state to state. if only states regulated themselves they would get into disputes with neighboring states over who is responsible. Also, if a company has multiple locations across the country, as many do, the idea that they would be regulated individually by every state would get quite convoluted. Similar issues with multinational corporations. Lastly, and this is fully speculative - I’m afraid if left to the states, many states would race to cut regulations in an attempt to encourage companies to locate in their state. We see that already with states competing for companies with tax incentives
 
  • Like
Reactions: USAFgolferVol
I’m all about cutting into the 1 trillion in defense spending. Also for allowing roll over of unused funds so that agencies don’t max out spending to avoid future budget reductions, etc
I Like that. Maybe it gets stuck in a pot for that agency that can then sit there and collect some type of interest like SS used to.
 
I understand the sentiment, but to use the EPA as one example- you need federal EPA to regulate environmental impact from state to state. if only states regulated themselves they would get into disputes with neighboring states over who is responsible. Also, if a company has multiple locations across the country, as many do, the idea that they would be regulated individually by every state would get quite convoluted. Similar issues with multinational corporations. Lastly, and this is fully speculative - I’m afraid if left to the states, many states would race to cut regulations in an attempt to encourage companies to locate in their state. We see that already with states competing for companies with tax incentives

When states have a dispute now it ends up in the courts not decided by the EPA so that argument is out the window.

As to the rest of your post, it is the states that do the vast majority of the enforcement. The federal EPA does little enforcement. EPA hands down an edict and it's up to the states to enforce, when an entity ignores the state the fed EPA sometimes steps in because they have the power to increase fines beyond what the state does. Then it ends up in, yes you guessed it the courts or arbitration.

Why shouldn't states decide their own tolerances? Those elected officials in the individual states either listen to their constituents of get voted out, the problem with our federal EPA is they are accountable to no one. Trust me our federal EPA is virtually useless except for harassing and being an impediment to good sense.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 82_VOL_83
When states have a dispute now it ends up in the courts not decided by the EPA so that argument is out the window.

As to the rest of your post, it is the states that do the vast majority of the enforcement. The federal EPA does little enforcement. EPA hands down an edict and it's up to the states to enforce, when an entity ignores the state the fed EPA sometimes steps in because they have the power to increase fines beyond what the state does. Then it ends up in, yes you guessed it the courts or arbitration.

Why shouldn't states decide their own tolerances? Those elected officials in the individual states either listen to their constituents of get voted out, the problem with our federal EPA is they are accountable to no one. Trust me our federal EPA is virtually useless except for harassing and being an impediment to good sense.

Yes, I understand if the states have a dispute it would end up in court, my point is in the case that there are interstate violations, the federal EPA steps in for the majority of such cases. States don’t want to spend money on other states- without an EPA at the federal level they would be forced to and forced to have all such disputes adjudicated as you described.

My point on the latter portion was that eliminating the EPA at the federal level would weaken the position of states to regulate large national and multinational corporations. The federal agency supplements state agencies so they can work on a level playing field. I get that you may be okay with that as a trade off for reducing federal reach, but I think corporations would just steamroll state jurisdictions in that circumstance, so I would be against it
 
Yes, I understand if the states have a dispute it would end up in court, my point is in the case that there are interstate violations, the federal EPA steps in for the majority of such cases. States don’t want to spend money on other states- without an EPA at the federal level they would be forced to and forced to have all such disputes adjudicated as you described.

My point on the latter portion was that eliminating the EPA at the federal level would weaken the position of states to regulate large national and multinational corporations. The federal agency supplements state agencies so they can work on a level playing field. I get that you may be okay with that as a trade off for reducing federal reach, but I think corporations would just steamroll state jurisdictions in that circumstance, so I would be against it

How?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 82_VOL_83
You're complaining about not enough people paying enough taxes. Ignoring the fact that a sizeable chunk of that "51%" are either young people working through high school or college or elderly people who have retired (as of a couple of years ago, only 11% of people aged 25-55 did not pay any net federal income tax), the only reason that people won't pay a federal income tax is because they aren't making enough money to make up for the tax deductions and breaks that they get (e.g. the standard deduction, EITC, child tax credit). For example, if you had a family with two kids, with one parent earning $50k per year and the other staying at home and watching the kids, they would not owe any federal income tax. In order to get those people to pay taxes, you have to start decreasing deductions and credits, which will increase taxes.
I am all for getting rid of all deductions for everybody. ALL deductions.

Here is what the tax form would look like:
1) How much money did you make from all sources?
2) Multiply line 1 by .1.
3) Attach your check here. ---->

Oh, but it has to be via constitutional amendment.
 

VN Store



Back
Top