Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Staff Contacts | Affiliates | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

Washington regulations don’t create jobs

March 5, 2014

WASHINGTON — My fight against unnecessary regulations is often construed by those that support big government programs as a fight to allow private companies to run wild without any oversight and any......

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(43)

Whizzywhig

Mar-07-14 1:45 PM

Dan,

As OUR elected and honored republican representative,

I’m sure you could also have provided the reasons why the bureaucrats in Washington didn’t bend and see your side of the story.

Before the next election, think of a way to provide your consticuents with the reasons, against granting support for the road…

Certainly this information is “public” information and your esteemed office should be able to wrangle such a request, out of those bureaucrats?

If not, let the voting begin….

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

bornayooper

Mar-10-14 4:06 PM

Duh, it's all about Big Environmentalism - that much is clear when it comes to a road that will service a mine. Like Benishek said it would actually reduce pollution by shortening the drive by 75% and being paved will eliminate dust. Flush the jobs down the sewer instead.

Speaking of regulations. That little thing know as the tax code is probably the worst job killer. If you have your own business then you will understand ten-fold. I once saw my wife in tears because the taxes for her small business were so bloody complicated. For government it is the primary means to the one thing it needs most: CONTROL.

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Whizzywhig

Mar-10-14 8:48 PM

The so-called “TAX CODE” you refer to

is a set of rules, frowing every year by nearly 2,000 to 3,000 pages of "changes, additions, or deletions,

to that total of about 76,000 pages of oxymoronic IRS ‘rules’

ACCURATELY DEFINED AS LOOPHOLES

concocted by

the rich,

big business, and

corporations, and

“Enabled” by congressional passage nearly word for word

as the tax code was written, and

lobbied by for the rich, their businesses and their corporations,

mostly for republican benefit.

Individual IRS rules for an individual on Form 1040 contain less that two pages of rules, or loopholes.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

BravesRock

Mar-11-14 4:31 PM

We could remove hundreds of pages from the tax code by eliminating the Earned Income Credit, the Additional Child Tax Credit, and several other credits that allow people to get hundreds or thousands of dollars more from the IRS than they paid in taxes. In some cases the tax refund is greater than the taxpayer's total income. I don't have as much of a problem with being able to write off mortgage interest or charitable donations against income, but I don't agree with giving people money beyond what they paid in just because they have kids or have low incomes. The tax code for small businesses and self-employment are also way more complex than necessary. Better yet, simplify even more and go to a flat tax that taxes everyone at the same rate, which overall would be lower but would not incorporate all the loopholes.

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

frogleggs

Mar-12-14 12:08 AM

Advocates of a “flat tax” are really advocating class warfare, at the end of the day,

because it is regressive, and favor’s, saddles, the payment of the tax by those whose income is smaller,

and therefore are forced to pay a larger percentage of their income for taxes, leaving less for savings …

To understand the context of the word “saving’s”, savvy readers will have to discover how that word relates to the rich as opposed to those who are not rich.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

frogleggs

Mar-12-14 12:09 AM

A responsible approach to taxation, would be to study the history for taxation,

beginning with those who number few, but with power,

they, and later whole societies comprising large numbers of people, thought it to be desirable for a tax or taxes to accomplish a specific purpose for the common good of that society.

Over the last 200 or so years, taxation has followed industrial and agricultural progress, with regard to business taxation and the establishment of the individual income tax beginning in 1931.

To simply blurt out to impose this type of tax, or that type of tax, is irresponsible. Irresponsible because it fails to consider the needs deemed important for a society, and what such a tax will or will not accomplish, positively or negatively, for each stakeholder class.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Vauche

Mar-15-14 7:19 AM

We have two peas in a pod and it's nice to see they are still up to their shinanigans.

Class warfare, we already have that, it's called the "fair share" arguement put out by your demi-god Obama.

Further according to you and Whiz our current tax code is also regressive. Does it not favor only the rich, greedy corporate republican? Give us your alternative then Frog. You won't though because you'll claim it's not your job to educate the dumb and stupid, or some lame excuse similar. I claim you don't have one. So put up or shut-up as the saying goes.

As for Whiz you show your true colors in your first post. Benishek faught for jobs in the UP and worked with local folks to modify the plan to meet exceedingly impossible EPA requirements and still you ask him to explain himself. How about you direct that response to the folks in Washington who said no. Ask them why. You won't because you are a blindly ignorant liberal progressive.

1 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Vauche

Mar-15-14 7:27 AM

Not surprisingly I agree with bornayooper. I can't stomach paying people to live in this country.

At best a tax refund should NOT ever exceed what was paid in. In all honesty it should not ever equal what was paid in. Everyone needs to pay their "fair" share after all, right? Well nobodies "fair" share is zero and nobodies "fair" share is a paycheck.

You should not get a check just for breathing in this country. Doesn't take a genius to see where such "loopholes" have led us as a society.

1 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Whizzywhig

Mar-15-14 8:31 AM

Kind of like having a never-ending supply of bolts, you know, rhymes with dolts ….

Some will never learn, no matter how many ways you explain, no matter how many “alternative” means of delivery and settings that are provided for them.

It’s like the concept of homeostasis, applied to dumb, dumber, dumbest, they’ll never move from their comfortable zone, thus perpetual ignorance.

Voochie,

I’ve added something for you too. Who said: “the dumb will always be with us” ?

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Whizzywhig

Mar-15-14 8:32 AM

7. There are so many “opportunities” but, I’ve reached the time where meds are more important than explaining the meaning of life to dolts.

BTW, the first know use of the word "dolt" was around 1553, so you know they’ve been with us for a long time; don’t take it upon yourself to be offended just because you cannot get your head around anything larger than narrow thinking.

8. I wish it were “my job to educate the dumb, stupid and lame (brained), as you say. Clearly there is a need, a natural supply of “fodder” if you will, where I could earn a living at it as you so aptly illustrate, because many would need to have their brains refreshed frequently because they dintn’t learn nohting the first time they took any class, or let alone have it…

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Whizzywhig

Mar-15-14 8:33 AM

4. In your state of natural somnolence, what in your estimation, is the reason for taxes ?

5. Now, and then one more reason, why do you think some should not have to pay taxes. (this will be a poser for you)

6. In your state of never ending somnolence, what in your estimation, is the reason that some people should not have to pay any taxes, even because they have the ability to do so?

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Whizzywhig

Mar-15-14 8:33 AM

3. Apparently, you don’t understand the meaning of the word regressive in economic jargon,

this is apparent and I will not contest this fact, and thus my reference to ‘savings’, and will go uncontested as well…

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Whizzywhig

Mar-15-14 8:36 AM

Voochie,

Who said: “the poor will always be with us”?

In an attempt to help you think clearly,

I’ve number the following points for your benefit, and the benefit of your friends.

1. I didn’t vote for the president, but maybe you did and certainly your friends did as well as the president had to have been elected by someone, you or your friends!

2. Our tax code is regressive.

2A. “At best a tax refund should NOT ever exceed what was paid in.” Says the vaunted voochie.

BUT, how do you explain the fact that even though GE earned over $15,000,000,000.00 in revenue; it paid no taxes; and it received a $5,000,000,000.00 tax credit?

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Vauche

Mar-15-14 10:55 AM

4) The reason for taxes should be to support the functions of our government in the application of it's responsibilities given it by the constitution. No more and no less. No social program liberal or conservative is spelled out in the constitution therefore our government shouldn't be involved.

5) In my utopia no one would pay any taxes. In the real world though, everyone should pay something otherwise it is too easy to increase the burden on another, hence the flat tax or another simplified system if it exists.

6) See above, it's the same dang question.

7) Don't call yourself names, it's bad for your self-esteem.

8) Well there's the 51% who voted for Obama who would love what your shoveling so I'm sure there would be a good living. Wouldn't call it educating though.

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Vauche

Mar-15-14 10:55 AM

Whiz,

Jesus said it, and your point?

1)Even sarcastically that's a dumb thing to waist time putting in print.

2) No it is progressive in design. The higher the income the higher the percentage paid. Yes loopholes and deductions have skewed this.

2A) First GE is a corporation not individual. Second, when did I ever say corporation shouldn't pay any taxes? That's right, NEVER!

3) In 2013 about 43% of households paid no federal income tax. Of this about 67% was due to low income and only 1% (approx 4000 households) where wealthy. The point is this, the poor do NOT pay federal income tax and the rich paying less than you deem appropriate does not make the tax code regressive. That said I will agree I see very little justification that millionaires should pay nothing.

1 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Whizzywhig

Mar-15-14 12:36 PM

How 'bout if I move my last line to the top of the list:

Voochie,

I’ve added something for you too. Who said: “the dumb will always be with us” ?

How's that for you and being a "waist" of time for being a "dumb" thing to say?

Just saying... dumb things?

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Vauche

Mar-15-14 1:43 PM

You can move it wherever you want whiz.

Further I hope the dumb are always with us as I would never wish anything bad to happen to you.

And yes you got me on the waist/waste grammer faux pas. Bet you lit up like a candle stick at that one, "oh I got him now".

Typical though, your points debunked and you pick out the one gramatical error even though you of omniscient intelligence could completely understand the meaning behind the statement I'm sure.

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

frogleggs

Mar-17-14 7:22 PM

Here’s how

- the Rich,

- Republicans,

- Businesses and

- Corporations see the U.S. and

- would define the Economic & Social classes in this country:

- the upper class, the one-percenter’s get to keep 89% of the money,

- they are determined and not willing to pay, therefore pays none of the taxes.

- the middle class pays all of the taxes,

- does all of the work.

- the poor are there just to scare the cr.ap out of the Middle Class,

- terror, fear, anxiety and apprehension,

- are but just a few forms of intimidation

- used by the Rich, Republicans, Business and Corporations

- to keep the Middle Class

- showing up everyday for those few remaining jobs that weren‘t outsourced or taken up by illegal aliens.

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

frogleggs

Mar-17-14 8:02 PM

. . . “Who cares about the law.

Hain’t we got money,

Hain't we got the power?"

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

frogleggs

Mar-17-14 8:04 PM

It has been argued

that we are now in a comparable economic period, the formative years of the Information Age. . .

Does the industrialization of America at the end of the nineteenth and beginning of the twentieth century hold any lessons for us today?

What forces can exert sufficient influence to rein in harmful business practices of the few, or

does government have to intervene on behalf of the majority?

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

frogleggs

Mar-17-14 8:05 PM

"Law?

What about the law?

Who cares about the law.

Hain’t we got money,

Hain't we got the power?"

— Comment alleged to have been made by

Commodore Cornelius Vanderbilt,

when warned that he might be violating the law . . .

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

frogleggs

Mar-17-14 8:06 PM

Of Captains

- Tyc.oo.ns of Industry,

- Robber Barron’s &

- Monopolist’s . . .

Though many years have passed, much has changed,

but little has changed not much, for the Rich and their Entitlement Mentality:

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Vauche

Mar-18-14 2:33 PM

Frog, you can't be serious!

Read, of the 43% of households that paid no federal income tax only around 1% are considered "wealthy". That number equates to about 4000 households. Hardly corresponds to your point of view.

With that knowledge we know your first post here is completely fallacious and pure hot air you created in the space between your ears.

The middle class does not pay 100% of the taxes. Don't construe this into me thinking they don't pay enough as you are likely to do as there is ample evidence to the contrary posted in these comment sections alone.

Why don't you ask Obama what he thinks of the law or the constitution?

He is the one we all should be afraid of. Executive privilige, dictatorship, tyrant. Unilaterally changing laws passed by congress. Not enforcing laws he does not agree with. This is complete disregard for our laws and constitution yet you say nothing.

Hypocrit anyone?

1 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

BravesRock

Mar-18-14 3:19 PM

Well said, Vauche, but you're wasting your keystrokes on Froggy and Whiz. I have posted in here previously the disproportionate amount of taxes paid by those in the upper income brackets. There are loopholes, to be sure, and there will always be those who try to get out of paying their share, but I have far more frustration with those who not only pay no federal income tax, but receive a "refund" of several thousand dollars when they paid in little to nothing. That is not a refund, it is a subsidy, or handout, if you will.

1 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Vauche

Mar-18-14 4:11 PM

Amen Brave, it's irritating when one can buy a car with their tax refund. And yes, I know about someone who did this.

Mind you, this same person was complaining about not having enough money to buy their children new school cloths a few months later.

As for Whiz and Frog, they're just funny, entertainment if you will. So wrong, so often it's almost hilarious. Only downside is they have the right to vote, but what are ya going to do about that.

1 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 43 comments Show More Comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web