Leaderboard

Please go back to page 1 of Common Sense 101 and re-read in its entirety. You're badly misunderstanding the content.

#3 seems very valid, when you just think about how their other products, like Quickbooks, routinely offer your clients 'their option' to cut you out.

The biggest problem with our system of government is career politicians and their need for the financial support of major contributors. Even the best of our politicians should be replaced after feeding at the public trough too long. What we need is term limits: one term in office and one term in prison.

For reference: Thomas Paine's "Common Sense," in its entirety: http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/milestones/commonsense/text.html However, Taxed consistently refused to comprehend that this country is NOT a democracy; it is a Constitutional Republic. There is a substantial difference between the two! The Declaration of Independence (part of the "organic laws" of the country) clearly states that the sole legitimate purpose of government is to secure our rights (rights, endowed by our Creator, not separable (unalienable), not dependent upon any government or government document for existence, not dependent upon any other person to provide). That's it -- no other reason or purpose. See for yourself: http://www.ushistory.org/Declaration/document/ We, as humans (and as you stated earlier, JohnH), have our own obligations to take care of the poor and infirm. My position, after years of analysis *begun from a very liberal - almost socialist - viewpoint* which changed reluctantly but wildly upon examination of hard evidence, is that it is both impossible (on a practical level) and immoral (on a personal level) to attempt to foist on to the government those tasks which belong to us as individuals. I go into this in depth in some of my writings, and will not re-create those here. In brief: Impossible because no bureaucracy can actually do the job, and the bigger the bureaucracy the _worse_ job they ultimately do (those who deserve help don't get it; those who don't deserve it, do get it); Immoral because we cannot actually out-source our own obligations -- yet act (far too often) as though we can.

It is so hot here today... I saw two beagles chasing a rabbit and they were all three walking....

>>The IRS site says they will come up with guidance<< 25 days is the normal time for a Supreme Court ruling to take effect. It will be substantially longer for the IRS to provide interpretation and guidance because that will also be subject to dispute. Remember, the Supreme Court did NOT say gay marriages are legal. It said (in one case) the federal government can't over-rule states, and (in the other case) it said the federal government can over-rule states. Here's one example of the big problems still to be worked out. A couple get legally married in California, then move to Alabama where the marriage is not legal. Anybody want to guess?

Very simple if you apply even a rudimentary understanding of the facts. Your last statement tells me you don't know the difference between verbal equivalence and moral equivalence. I can do my research and choose which corporations I invest in. If I still make a mistake and buy Monsanto, I can sell my shares and choose someone to manage my investment elsewhere. None of that applies with the US government. Monsanto can't force me to invest in their enterprise - the US government can and does. Monsanto can't use the power of the state to seize my earnings, waste what they wish, and give much of the rest to others whom they believe are "more deserving'. Incidentally, I have a moral obligation to help others, but by attempting to make that decision for me, the government robs me of the ability to be a good steward of the resources I have available. There are certain jobs only government can do well. It has an obligation to do them and we should pay taxes to support them. Social engineering does not fall into that category. Any more questions, or do you need to pull out your Economics 101 book so we can have an intelligent discussion about this?

And on the other side of the equation we have greedy cynics who are perfectly willing to use the power of the state to forcibly take what one person has earned and give it to another whom they deem more deserving, thereby buying their votes in the process. Looks like there's plenty of greed to go around on all sides.