|
|
|
|
|
| SFReader Forums > The Real World > World Events > Victory in Iraq | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
PaulMc
Adept
      
Date Joined May 2005
Total Posts : 992
| Posted 1/20/2006 2:11 AM (GMT -5) |   |
quote:
Income tax didn't become a standard feature until WWII, and at the time it was only the rich who got taxed...up until they realized they can get more money overall by taxing everyone. Up until WWII it was actually considered patriotic to not pay taxes, and taxation on anything was doggedly fought. During the first hundred or so years, politicians were never paid a dime for holding office because it was considered an honor not a job, they were expected to make their money the same way everone else did, by working for it or owning a business. Wars were originally funded by the sale of War Bonds instead of through taxation (imagine how often we'd be in wars if it were still funded that way), and taxes were paid on a voluntary basis up until (again) WWII when it was then made mandatory. Also, all government activities were originally funded through the sale of government bonds. The only mandatory taxes the government was allowed were the exports of tobacco, firearms, and alcohol.
Now, I could be wrong on the time period where it switched. It could've been WWI instead of WWII, but either way, the basic idea I'm trying to get across remains the same. I'm also doing it off memory of some tapes and books I came across, like, 5 years ago.
Wikipedia states it started as earlier as the Civil War, but that's not an guaranteed source. I thought it was around 1911-1913, well before WW1
The Congress shall have power--
1. To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts, and excises, shall be uniform throughout the United States
That states they can collect taxes to pay the debts of government .. not only to pay for war.
-- Paul McNamee
http://writer.paulmcnamee.net
http://www.dorancoyle.net
"Queen of the Sepulcher" still appearing at The Sword Review - Bonus Features | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Scott M. Sandridge
Former King of Shameless Plugs
Date Joined Dec 2005
Total Posts : 714
| Posted 1/20/2006 2:38 AM (GMT -5) | | Don't make me pull my copy of the Constitution out, dude.[;)]
I'll be back after I get some long overdue writing and reviewing done, and after I dig the Constitution out of my closet...or Google it.
http://www.geocities.com/sandridge75 | | Back to Top | | |
|
Scott M. Sandridge
Former King of Shameless Plugs
Date Joined Dec 2005
Total Posts : 714
| Posted 1/20/2006 2:40 AM (GMT -5) | | Of course, I might have been thinking of the Articles of Confederation. Oh well.
http://www.geocities.com/sandridge75 | | Back to Top | | |
|
BethS
Adept
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 751
| Posted 1/20/2006 4:11 AM (GMT -5) | | quote:
Originally posted by Scott M. Sandridge
I really wish they had an editing feature on ths blasted thing. Previews aren't enough.
There is an editing feature. Look at your message toolbar. There's an icon with a piece of paper and a pencil. Click on that to edit your post.
Beth | | Back to Top | | |
|
Dave
Master of the Domain
Date Joined Aug 2003
Total Posts : 696
| Posted 1/20/2006 4:25 AM (GMT -5) | | Ever hear the rat/cocaine experiment? Rats press a lever, get coke. Some rats did nothing but keep pressing that lever until they died.
I say make ALL drugs legal and extremely cheap. In a generation or two, we'll have weeded out the genetic predisposition to excessive addiction and all that will be left are recreational users. And this doesn't take into account that 90% or more of crime would go away.
Dave
SFReader Webmaster
LCD Monitors
Dan River Bed in a Bag Sets
Yoga Mats & Yoga Gear
XL Twin Sheets | | Back to Top | | |
|
BarbT
Acolyte
Date Joined Feb 2005
Total Posts : 394
| Posted 1/20/2006 7:15 AM (GMT -5) | | quote:
Originally posted by Dave
I say make ALL drugs legal and extremely cheap. In a generation or two, we'll have weeded out the genetic predisposition to excessive addiction and all that will be left are recreational users. And this doesn't take into account that 90% or more of crime would go away.
Dave
SFReader Webmaster
I'm not sure about the social/genetic engineering part, but I agree with the rest. If "safe" (meaning unlaced with other drugs or poisons the user didn't intend to take) drugs were available at the corner government drug shop, the crime rate would drop so much that programs for those who wanted to quit could be funded lavishly.
Another thing that is seldom mentioned is the disincentive drug money - or the dream of it - is for kids. I used to work with "at risk" teens, and a common theme for them was "Why should I bother with school? I (or my boyfriend) can make more than you do in a month in one weekend!"
The risk of arrest or death at the hands of rival dealers is just seen as part of the cost of doing business.
I think it would be worth a try, say for ten years; but it will never happen. My jaded opinion is that too much money from the illegal drug trade, nicely laundered, is being funneled to those in powerful places (regardless of political affiliation [;)]).
Barb
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Jeff Stehman
Sage
Date Joined Mar 2005
Total Posts : 1224
| Posted 1/20/2006 9:00 AM (GMT -5) | | quote:
Originally posted by Scott M. Sandridge
[quote]Originally posted by PaulMc
Income tax didn't become a standard feature until WWII, and at the time it was only the rich who got taxed...
I believe it was a matter of salary and wages not being including in income. Basically, if you worked for it, it wasn't taxed. If your money worked for it, it was. These days the system leans the other way.
--Jeff Stehman | | Back to Top | | |
|
Scott M. Sandridge
Former King of Shameless Plugs
Date Joined Dec 2005
Total Posts : 714
| Posted 1/29/2006 9:38 AM (GMT -5) | | quote:
Originally posted by Jeff Stehman
quote:
Originally posted by Scott M. Sandridge
[quote]Originally posted by PaulMc
Income tax didn't become a standard feature until WWII, and at the time it was only the rich who got taxed...
I believe it was a matter of salary and wages not being including in income. Basically, if you worked for it, it wasn't taxed. If your money worked for it, it was. These days the system leans the other way.
--Jeff Stehman
I think you're right on that. IMO, income tax is the most unfair form of taxation yet thought up. Think about it, you're being punished for working in what's supposed to be a free enterprise system. I have no problem with luxury sales tax, import/export tax, and other taxes of that nature where you basically "volunteer" to pay a tax. But getting taxed just for working? Imagine a government trying to do that back in the days of the Boston Tea Party! There would've been rioting in the streets!
http://www.geocities.com/sandridge75 | | Back to Top | | |
|
MichaelEhart
Sage
Date Joined Jul 2005
Total Posts : 2352
| Posted 1/29/2006 8:32 PM (GMT -5) | | quote:
I think it would be worth a try, say for ten years; but it will never happen. My jaded opinion is that too much money from the illegal drug trade, nicely laundered, is being funneled to those in powerful places (regardless of political affiliation ).
Barb, you may be right, in another way. I work in elective politics--- it is a byword regardless of party that public safety issues always play. Small donors, which with election reform are now vital, tend to donate from a basis of fear. Tough on crime, tough on drug dealers, manditory sentances, etc. all sell well to the small donor, regardless of party.
This is why we have some pretty impracticle laws on the books now--- and a recent example (not to be partisan, here, just the most recent--- both parties are guilty of this, but tend to use different tactics) the Republican party here in Washington State introduced a 111 page crime bill and pushed for adoption on the first day of session--- no committee, no chance to read it. It was defeated, and the next day fake sex-offender notification cards (which were pre-printed, of course) showed up in the mail in every swing district, with a note to call the representative who voted down harsher penaties for sex offenders.
My point is not about the dirty trick (Washington already has the harshest sex-crime laws in the US) which back-fired because they used the same picture in counties hundreds of miles apart--- viva the internet age :)--- but about the perfectly valid assumption that a public safety issue would play, and play well.
"Dancing with the Elder Gods"-- Thirteen Magazine, October
"It's a Living" Byzarium---November
"Voice of the Spoiler" and "An Exorcism Straight, Hold the Elvis" The Sword Review, October
"Oathbreaker" Mythica Vault
Host, 2005 Nebula Awards Live Chat, sff.net
http://mehart.blogspot.com/ | | Back to Top | | |
|
Jeff Stehman
Sage
Date Joined Mar 2005
Total Posts : 1224
| Posted 1/30/2006 5:39 AM (GMT -5) | | quote:
Originally posted by MichaelEhart
no chance to read it.
Of all the annoying things our legislators do these days, passing bills without reading them is at the top of my list. The best thing to come out of campaign finance reform is they got their noses rubbed in not knowing what they had passed.
--Jeff Stehman | | Back to Top | | |
|
Raph
Stubborn Scholar
Date Joined Oct 2004
Total Posts : 263
| Posted 1/31/2006 8:11 PM (GMT -5) | | Maybe if they weren't so busy going on golf trips with lobbyists and calling them "fact-finding missions" they would have time to actually read what they're voting on. ;)
Mike O. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Scott M. Sandridge
Former King of Shameless Plugs
Date Joined Dec 2005
Total Posts : 714
| Posted 2/1/2006 2:37 AM (GMT -5) | | quote:
Originally posted by Raph
Maybe if they weren't so busy going on golf trips with lobbyists and calling them "fact-finding missions" they would have time to actually read what they're voting on. ;)
Mike O.
I'd laugh my butt off if it weren't so terrifyingly true.
http://www.geocities.com/sandridge75 | | Back to Top | | |
|
Daniel
Carl Jung's Waterboy
Date Joined Aug 2003
Total Posts : 4515
| Posted 2/3/2006 10:13 AM (GMT -5) | | The new majority leader has a 4 handicap.... At least that's what I heard.
Daniel
www.pitchblackbooks.com | | Back to Top | | |
|
Stranger
Stablehand
Date Joined Jun 2006
Total Posts : 20
| Posted 6/22/2006 6:32 PM (GMT -5) | | Wow, for SF writers and readers everybody missed some big ones.
What about the war on science, not just Unintelligent Design, but global warming, all those environmental laws that do the opposite of what they say, like the "clean air act." NSA wire tapping (which they lied more about every time they got caught), PAID people to make statements on blogs, and letters written over a decade ago by the Program for a New American Century (which the admin. was in on) that just coincidentally keep coming true.
Then there are tax breaks for the rich, while the minimum wage hasn't been raised in ten years. The Abramhoff scandal-- Which affects over half of the house.
And the number ONE problem all writers and readers should be aware of, The so-called liberal media, that is owned pretty much by five corporations, the rich. Reporters can't ask questions or they won't get interviews, people can't protest unless they go to specific areas where they won't be seen.
This is an administration that would've made Phil K. Dick twice as crazy, and probably has to be ignored by Harlan Ellison just so he won't be pissed off into two more strokes. Asimov would've spoken the truth and chopped these guys into pieces.
Orwell was right. | | Back to Top | | |
|
nathan
Sage
Date Joined Mar 2006
Total Posts : 2176
| Posted 6/23/2006 12:01 PM (GMT -5) | | Okay, I'm going to sound a little right, but my questions aren't meant that way.
Here's what bothers me about bashing intelligent design. Science is cyclical and just a touch dogmatic. That is the cycle always runs this way: Established scienctific thought. Everybody "knows" this is the way it is. Then some young turk comes along with a new theory. Established old schoolers bash them, laugh at them, question their IQ. Young turk is inspired, sticks to his guns, starts proving themselves. Eventually something irrefutable comes along and the young turk replaces the old school.
Only to immediately become rigid old school and the cycle starts over.
I've got no dog in the "it was aliens or God or Easter Bunny done made us" side of the fight. The problem that worries seems to be the holy grail, dogmatic alliegience to Dawrinism some in the fight allude to at times. Scientists should always be ready to roll with outside the box thinking.
My point is only that if a minister and a biologist go on Larry King and start arguing about science: listen to the biologist. If two biologists go on Larry King and one is saying "we know what we know, damnit!" and the other one is saying "never stop questioning, man!" then one of them represents a purer form of scientific spirit.
Scott, I have to disagree: I am a nurse, which doesn't mean I can't be wrong about such things. But I learned in Biology 130 (from an athetist, mind you) that life begins at conception. I looked up 'embryo' in my nursing manual and then at Dictionairy.com and the resulting definitions were the same:Embryo
- An organism in its early stages of development, especially before it has reached a distinctively recognizable form.
- An organism at any time before full development, birth, or hatching.
- The fertilized egg of a vertebrate animal following cleavage.
- In humans, the prefetal product of conception from implantation through the eighth week of development.
- *****
Now, I'm not saying I'm against emrionic research. I'm not making an anti-abortion argument of any kind. I am saying that the egg is most definatly feterilized in order for it to be an 'embryo.'
There are rather cool new studies suggesting that most of the stem cell benifits derived from embryos may be found in unfeterilized eggs. The studies aren't as advanced yet but possibilities are out there.
VIEW IMAGE
"Writing the wet dreams of teenage boys" - Lindsey Llyod, Tangent Reviews | | Back to Top | | |
|
Stranger
Stablehand
Date Joined Jun 2006
Total Posts : 20
| Posted 6/23/2006 4:11 PM (GMT -5) | | First off, I meant to say Harlan would've had another heart attack--believe me I'm not wishing anything on the guy--I've always found him to be inspiring, and I miss the fact that there aren't any SF writers out there questioning, and sometimes bashing, this administration the way he did.
I'm actually a somewhat spiritual guy, I just don't see any scientific method in ID. I was taught that part of scientific method was that you couldn't just say "...because God said so...)
I've actually begun to think that somewhere between string theory and doing the right thing, is God.
Meanwhile I leave another question about the current admin. "What about that no chile left behind act? Seen the latest on -time national graduation scores?
And on the main topic, I trust this admin. less than any in the last fifty years. They've wiped their ass with the constitution, and I'm more frightened of them than the other terrorists. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Swashbuckler
One-man sword-and-sorcery machine
Date Joined Mar 2006
Total Posts : 1286
| Posted 6/23/2006 4:23 PM (GMT -5) | | Scott: I'm pretty sure you have to fertilize an egg to get an embryo.
Nathan: I'm all for scientists who question the established knowledge. That's how science advances. Many of the people whose work has served to establish the veracity of evolution, for instance, were trying pretty hard to prove Darwin wrong.
My beef with Intelligent Design and Creationism, specifically, is this:
1) The ID and Creationist backers I've encountered do not adhere to the scientific method at all. They have their hypothesis, and then they leap on every bit of evidence that seems to support that hypothesis and blatantly ignore everything else. If they really want to be considered as scientists, their hypothesis has to account for the negative evidence as well as the positive evidence. They can't just ignore the negative evidence, nor can they simply attribute it to "Evil Secular Humanist Scientists Out To Destroy God."
2) A great deal of the work of these people seems aimed more at disproving evolution than at proving their own hypothesis. If they disprove evolution tomorrow, it still won't mean that THEIR hypothesis is CORRECT. And their efforts to disprove evolution usually follow the path mentioned above: Leap on anything that looks good to them, blatantly ignore everything else. No matter how much everything else weighs.
3) Much of the ID and Creationist literature is riddled with bald statements that simply aren't true. "There are no transitional forms in the fossil record," they say, when in fact, there are transitional forms. "You can't observe evolution in action," when in fact, it was observation that got Darwin rolling in that direction to begin with, and experiments with insects and viruses, etc., that generate many generations over a short period have been observed to evolve. You can move around the globe and find species that are closely related to existing species, yet are different because they have evolved differently to adapt to a new environment. Such observations on the Galapagos were what Darwin was trying to explain.
4) The ID/Creationist movement, politically, wants to insist on "equal footing" in the schools. "If you can teach Darwinism in schools, why not be fair and teach our theory, too?" Well, the answer is that evolution is backed by truckloads and decades of good science, peer-reviewed science, and is continually being shaped as a model by new evidence, hard questions, new experimentation, etc. ID/Creationism doesn't do all that. Frankly, it doesn't rise to the level of science at all. When it does, by golly, let's teach it in the schools. Until then, though, let's not. The universe, for all I know, could have been shaped by God just for us. I kind of doubt it, but I could be wrong. If someone proves Creationism/ID using real science and real scientific methods, that can be replicated by other scientists and stand up to hard questions, etc., then there's no more argument. But simply adopting language that "sounds" scientific isn't going to be enough to convince me, and it shouldn't be enough to make Creation/ID part of our nation's science curriculum.
Now, I realize that science has yet to explain how life arose in the first place. Evolution does not explain that. That doesn't mean that life doesn't evolve. It only means we don't know how life began. Failure to explain how life began does not constitute proof that the evolutionists are wrong and the ID/Creationists are right. I have my own theory on how life arose, but as I have only a gut feeling and no tangible proof, I'll keep quiet on that score.
I'm all for asking tough questions and not accepting "the prevailing view" as dogma. There are many gaps in our knowledge, because knowledge is a fluid thing, changing all the time. Scientists look at new evidence, see how it fits into their models and then, if they have to, change their models to account for new evidence. This is not evidence that scientists are stupid; it is evidence that scientists are learning.
Steve Goble
Visit www.stevegoble.com for news on upcoming stories or to see my blog | | Back to Top | | |
|
Scott M. Sandridge
Former King of Shameless Plugs
Date Joined Dec 2005
Total Posts : 714
| Posted 6/23/2006 8:21 PM (GMT -5) | | Crud. I got it wrong again. I'm only 31, and I'm already going senile...
I checked out the ID theory a while back. It seemed mostly based on mathematical probability, but with one major hole. They never bothered to add chain reactions into the equation. Even if an event can only occur accidentally "once in a univeral lifespan", that one event can create a chain reaction that can cause most, if not all, the other "once in a universal lifespan" events to occur. It doesn't rule out the existence of a Higher Power, but it doesn't prove it, either.
Personally, I wonder about my fellow Christians' antipathy toward Evolution. It makes sense to me, even as a believer. After all, why wouldn't God have created a mechanism that would allow lifeforms to adapt and change with their environment? It leaves a lot less work for Him. 
Which lich fell in the ditch? | | Back to Top | | |
|
Stranger
Stablehand
Date Joined Jun 2006
Total Posts : 20
| Posted 6/27/2006 10:49 PM (GMT -5) | | Yes I really would trust Nixon more than Bush. First of all he's not conservative. Look at the deficit, not one veto in six years--and over 750 signing statements (all used for the wrong purpose, so he can ignore the parts of the bill he doesn't like.)
Maybe if we'd have stayed in afghanistan and helped them build a democracy there, instead of starting an illegal war (no UN--a war crime), maybe if we hadn't started to breed an entire new genreration of terrorists--just like we did when we abandoned afghanistan in the 80's, Maybe if we hadn't already killed over 100,000 people (not to mention 2500 of our own, 20,000 wounded of our own, and a possible 7 to 8000 that may be suffering from head trauma due to the fact that IBT is the signature wound of this war.
Iraq had little to do with islamic terrorists. Hell, they wanted to kill Saddam. Only an idiot would go into Baghdad, and say, "Gosh, we're 'murican, and we know better than you. Let us change the culture that you've had for the last 3000 years."
Bush created more terrorists than he ever stopped. He's strangled the media, the first, fourth, and fourteenth amendments.
My little brother died because he couldn't afford to go to the doctor. Every other capitalist country in the world has single pay healthcare; 40% of our people have none. He screwed the old, the disabled, and the weak.
The entire thing has been a circus parade of a nightmare advertising scheme. The rich get richer. The poor get poorer. The middle class ceases to exist.
There's not much difference from a cryptofascist, and an islamic fascist, except maybe the crypto uses a different religion.
He swore to uphold the constitution. He lied. People died. The frat boy's going to hell. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Raph
Stubborn Scholar
Date Joined Oct 2004
Total Posts : 263
| Posted 6/28/2006 2:26 AM (GMT -5) | |
| | |