Fourth of July Shortbread

The Pick 6

  1. Antenna expert: Apple is right, iPhone signal woes overblown
  2. BGR: Apple is wrong, that Steve Jobs email exchange was real
  3. C|Net reports Democrats push for new Internet sales taxes
  4. InfoWorld: The ignominious fall of Dell and

    GPUs boost energy efficiency in supercomputers

  5. Redmondmag: How Microsoft is busting its own ‘the browser is part of the OS’ myth
  6. Krebs on Security: Top apps largely forgo Windows security protections

Fourth of July

  1. Android and Me: Night-vision mode could double your Android’s battery life
  2. PCMag reports RIAA outraged by YouTube-Viacom decision
  3. BGR reports Blockbuster to be de-listed from NYSE
  4. American Academy of Arts & Sciences: Do scientists and engineers understand the public?

Software

  1. What is the most clicked Firefox button?
  2. Phoronix reports Qualcomm releases open-source 2D / 3D kernel driver

Hardware

  1. PC Perspective: Home theater desktops? Bah, I say! Why notebooks are the answer.
  2. Hardware Heaven reviews Alienware M17x laptop
  3. InfoWorld on the best-performing netbooks
  4. TweakPC reviews Foxconn P55 Inferno Katana GTI (in German)
  5. Madshrimps review Axle Radeon HD 5450 512MB
  6. DragonSteelMods review Sync Blocker USB-to-dock connector cable for iPhone / iPod / iPad
  7. ThinkComputers reviews Cooler Master Elite 430 case
Comments closed
    • killadark
    • 9 years ago

    wow lots off comments not time to read all might as well ignore me i guess

    • ClickClick5
    • 9 years ago

    l[

      • Farting Bob
      • 9 years ago

      They only tested firefox as this was a firefox addon by mozilla. They cant say their results are the same for all browsers out there.

    • burntham77
    • 9 years ago

    l[<# PC Perspective: Home theater desktops? Bah, I say! Why notebooks are the answer.<]l I say nay! I like having an HTPC in my entertainment center that looks like a stereo receiver. A laptop would just look tacky.

    • anotherengineer
    • 9 years ago

    For all them Americans and Independance Day.

    §[<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbRom1Rz8OA<]§

    • thermistor
    • 9 years ago

    bdwilcox…keep your political crap off this website. I want to at least read some pithy, insightful comments when I come to TR: yours are neither.

    I’m also going to solicit the TR editors for a ban, as you’ve dipped your toes in the P&R fountain far too many times for my reading comfort.

      • bdwilcox
      • 9 years ago

      Man, I’m away all day and I come back to a juicy comment like this? Hey thermi-boy, PM me your address so I can send you a crying towel and a laxative.

    • indeego
    • 9 years ago

    My prediction about Left4Dead2 being available for $15 within a year of release came true, and then some. It’s now available for $10.19 on Steam less than 8 months after release.

    Picked up Borderlands and Grand Theft Auto IV also. That will probably do it for me for games until the Holiday saleg{<.<}g edit: Now I see why it's so cheap: §[<http://indeego.com/ahsteamilovethee.png<]§

      • willyolio
      • 9 years ago

      technically yeah, but it’s one of steam’s crazy sales. the regular price is still sitting at $30.

      also, i’m downloading it just fine… lucky me! going to play in approximately… 5 minutes.

    • OneArmedScissor
    • 9 years ago

    Oops, wrong place….uh, Happy 4th of July?!??!/1/11/!?!?

    • indeego
    • 9 years ago

    Kinda whack ya’ll think the U.S. is taxed to an extreme:
    §[<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Income_Taxes_By_Country.svg<]§ By no means are we in the upper tier in terms of taxation ratesg{<.<}g

      • OneArmedScissor
      • 9 years ago

      Eh, well, barring Japan, which is ever so slightly higher, it appears that the corporate tax IS the extreme. All of those bombs have to come from somewhere…well, unless you just throw the bill onto the national debt pile.

        • indeego
        • 9 years ago
    • blubje
    • 9 years ago

    I hope someday Amazon has to pay taxes, like all of the other stores, esp. local retail stores.

    • link626
    • 9 years ago

    dumbf*** politicians.

    one way to worsen a recession is to apply more taxes.

    good job. congress representatives are the dumbest of the bunch.

      • sweatshopking
      • 9 years ago

      man! if only all the politicians in the world could be as smart as you! thanks, nobody knew that taxes could be bad! if economics was actually a science, rather than a guess, then perhaps things like that could be for sure. BUT IT ISNT.

    • xtremevarun
    • 9 years ago

    Have a great 4th of July guys.

      • Duck
      • 9 years ago

      what’s this 4th of july thing about?

    • bdwilcox
    • 9 years ago

    “To preserve [the] independence [of the people,] we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our election between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude. If we run into such debts as that we must be taxed in our meat and in our drink, in our necessaries and our comforts, in our labors and our amusements, for our callings and our creeds, as the people of England are, our people, like them, must come to labor sixteen hours in the twenty-four, give the earnings of fifteen of these to the government for their debts and daily expenses, and the sixteenth being insufficient to afford us bread, we must live, as they now do, on oatmeal and potatoes, have no time to think, no means of calling the mismanagers to account, but be glad to obtain subsistence by hiring ourselves to rivet their chains on the necks of our fellow-sufferers.” –Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1816. ME 15:39

    -and-

    “…What country before ever existed a century & half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is its natural manure.”
    –Thomas Jefferson to William S. Smith, Paris, Nov. 13, 1787

      • xtremevarun
      • 9 years ago

      Founding Fathers FTW!

      • MadManOriginal
      • 9 years ago

      Thomas Jefferson backed away from his ‘refresh with blood’ ideals after seeing how ugly the French Revolution became. At first he supported it but as the Reign of Terror came in to full force he backed away. Letters are great because they give insight in to thought processes as ideas develop but they are just a snapshot in time.

      I also enjoy him writing about fiscal responsibility, I know it’s about public debt but he sure as hell wasn’t fiscally responsible in his personal finances. A lot of that talk was about the federal assumption of state debts too so it needs to be understood in the context of the debates of the time.

        • bdwilcox
        • 9 years ago

        Jefferson later renounces the *[

          • sweatshopking
          • 9 years ago

          I would just like to ask: Who gives a rats ass what a couple of old farts thought a country should be like 200 years ago? founding fathers this and founding fathers that… it was FOREVER ago!! has america learned nothing since? are you still thinking Jefferson wanted this, so we have to do it? seriously, bdwilcox, you’re posts are the rants of an insane person. you go to the U of Beck or what?

          I’m going to make a few assumptions, one, you’re white. two, you’re parents were middle class whilst you were growing up.

          Don’t act like you know stuff cause you’re a white boy who got a break. You don’t know a THING about poverty or how to alleviate it. I am not arguing that welfare isnt overspending, or that there aren’t depts that could use revisions, but your posts are ludicrous, and result in you looking foolish. if you do not care about your neighbors, or the widow down the street, then the government will have to.

          The total US Federal budget for 2010 is $3.55 trillion. Of this $695 billion is to be spent on social security, $453 billion on Medicare and $290 billion on Medicaid. Does anyone in his right mind think that these sums could be provided by private charity? how about taking some from that exploding military budget, and do the world some good. stop paying money to kill, and think how much better your country would be. All that money could be back in your pocket!

            • bdwilcox
            • 9 years ago

            There’s nothing like a charity sermon coming from a guy who exploited the poorest of the poor in Africa…

            /[

            • sweatshopking
            • 9 years ago

            lol. i think perhaps you don’t really understand what i did in africa. I do apologize (which I do a fair bit on here), my post seems unnecessarily harsh and insulting. Certainly, I can appreciate a man has his own political views. That being said, I NEVER exploited the poorest of the poor in Africa. I worked as a manager in a factory that could certainly be described as a sweatshop, but it wasnt under my watch. Also, that is only 1 of the many jobs i had there, from volunteer teaching computers to grade 6’s (210 of them) to volunteering full time in an orphanage. NOBODY would describe my work as taking advantage of anyone.

            I’ll take the personal attack as admittance of the validity of my previous argument, since you didn’t refute that at all. I think you’ll find however, that most people don’t want to pay higher taxes, want everyone to have more money, and pretty much all the same stuff as yourself, they just don’t agree on how important it is. I live in nova scotia, Canada, where we have the highest taxes in Canada. I certainly agree that money could be better spent, and that taxes should ALSO be based on wealth, rather than just income, but I’m fundamentally concerned about the wealth-fare of those around me. Not even necessarily in Canada. You complain about the illegal immigrants, but praise the Free trade agreement that has made a mess of northern mexico. People have to eat, and because you won the galactic lottery and were born a specific place seems a poor excuse for a right to a better standard of living.

            Mother Teresa once said: “It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish”, but I would say it isn’t just poverty, it’s a crime against humanity, that needs the full attention of every individual alive, as well as a portion of their income. Yah, it’s socialist, but there simply is no way to feed the world’s poor, currently. Socialism seems to be quite a helpful step in getting developed, and can have certain aspects removed as a population develops. Maybe one day when everyone is eating, we can remove many parts of it, but that day isnt today.

            • bdwilcox
            • 9 years ago

            Just to make it clear, I refute all of your previous points, some on ideology and some on implementation. I think your prior post racist and assumptive and I normally wouldn’t honor it with a reply. Since you were more congenial on your second post, I’ll ignore the insults and insinuations and answer you with cogent arguments.

            First, socialism is always sold as a panacea for social ills like hunger, inequality, all of the *isms (racism, sexism, etc) and promises to alleviate human suffering. As the previous century attests, socialism has been the source of the greatest human suffering in history with a toll upwards of a quarter billion human victims. Socialist leaders promise to empower the people, but the only ones they empower are themselves. With a family history well steeped in Nazism and Communism, I can attest to these truths.

            If my grandfather were alive today, he would wholeheartedly endorse the following letter:
            §[<http://letter-to-america.us/letter-to-america<]§ You would do well to read it. America's founding fathers were the wisest political theorists who've ever lived. Spurred on a by a love of liberty, they wrote the most brilliant essays in human history concerning practical governance and the role of the state in a free society. Later political theorists like Hegel, Marx, Schopenhauer, and Nietzsche had their "newer" and "more enlightened" political theories implemented and we have the killing fields and mass graves to prove it. The new totalitarianism was just the old totalitarianism. Our founding fathers new it and tried to steer us away from it as best they could. Second, I'm not sure where you got that I supported NAFTA, but I don't. NAFTA, CAFTA, SPP, MFN, WTO and all the other globalist "free-trade" schemes have been catastrophes for the American economy. As the years have gone by, I've become more and more a protectionist who advocates fair-trade rather than free-trade due to the abuses of fascist governments and their slave labor work forces like China. Third, I may not know how to eliminate all poverty, but I know one way you DON'T alleviate it: by paying people not to work. The numbers you quote for social services in the US are a sin. Putting people on the government trough only breeds complacency and dependency. But most of all what it breeds is a loss of liberty as the state gains more and more control over your life. If you really cared for your neighbor, you would first want to see them free and second want to see them self-sufficient, not a slave to the state. For the rare few who aren't able-bodied to work, there is family, private charity or state-run (not federal) welfare. The federal government has no place in welfare. The Constitution says the federal government is to promote the general welfare, not provide the general welfare, a very important distinction. The states are certainly free to provide all the welfare they like and their smaller size and local involvement will improve oversight and reduce fraud. I don't know anyone who would deny state monetary help to a paralyzed man, but I would most happily refuse it to someone who refused to get off the bottle. Fourth, to feed the world's poor you don't enslave them to a socialist state. You get rid of their tyrannical rulers and oppressive governments who starve their people to feed their armies and build their palaces. Send all the food and money you want to North Korea, Sudan or Somalia and you'd be lucky if one grain of rice made it to the peoples' mouths. Fifth, if my thoughts are "foolish" in the eyes of a socialist then I know I'm on the right track; I take it as a compliment of the highest order. And finally, /[<"I worked as a manager in a factory that could certainly be described as a sweatshop, but it wasnt under my watch."<]/ That's a Nuremberg defense and as lame as they come.

            • hapyman
            • 9 years ago

            Well said sir… I wish I could express my disdain for socialism as eloquently as you have put it. The current state of affairs are more due to socialistic influences on a capitalistic market than just purely being capitalistic. Ron Paul seems to be one of the few in the government ranks pushing to return us to our roots. Unfortunately he was censored by the Republican party.

            • sweatshopking
            • 9 years ago

            well my friend. As for racist, no. It was a fair assumption, which given your response, I assume (again) that i was correct. It isnt a racist comment, merely a statistical fact. Given your political leanings, they are more likely to be somebody who will benefit from lower taxes, and someone who has never been REALLY broke, and probably white (to use 2 and’s in a sentence 😉 I also don’t think you have really ever spent that much time in the third world. Ask the people in the Niger delta how much they love some of america’s greatest corporations, such as exxon. how about Ecuador and chevron? Indonesia and Nike? It isnt that people arent willing to work. it’s that business doesnt assist them. just abuses them and grows fatter.

            Somethings we can agree on. first, free trade. I agree, they have been catastrophes, and I support “fair-trade rather than free-trade due to the abuses of fascist governments and their slave labor work forces like China.” Also, ” you would first want to see them free and second want to see them self-sufficient”, this as well, of course. As for your distinction between federal vs state, really that is not really important. I can agree that certainly a state might be better at administering, but I wouldnt get my panties in a knot over it.

            On this one: “America’s founding fathers were the wisest political theorists who’ve ever lived.” ehhhhhh, I dont know if i agree with that. they did a great job with some aspects, but not others.

            “I may not know how to eliminate all poverty, but I know one way you DON’T alleviate it: by paying people not to work. The numbers you quote for social services in the US are a sin.” Sure. makes total sense, i agree. I don’t remember advocating paying people who are too lazy or not willing to work. that’s insane.

            “get rid of their tyrannical rulers and oppressive governments who starve their people to feed their armies”
            Sure, like the United States. you guys could dig a lot of wells, or feed a lot of people, or educate a lot of children, if you didn’t waste so much on your military. And there are PLENTY of countries around the world that would be more than happy and deal fairly with such an arrangement. They aren’t all corrupt.

            “That’s a Nuremberg defense and as lame as they come.” uuhhhhh no. if i said I took over Auschwitz, opened the doors, stopped beating people, and allowed bathroom breaks, talking, wage increases, and fair working conditions, and generally treated the workers as human beings, how is that the same as the people who came before? it isnt. Also, I dont know if you’re in any place to judge myself, as you certainly own and use many products that were produce in exactly the horrible manner we are discussing, thereby legitimizing their usage?

            Finally, I dont know where you decided I was a socialist, I’m most certainly down the center. I wouldnt even describe myself as liberal. I have some ideas that are right and left. I am fully in favour of private enterprise, in favour of protecting the family, practical governance, and the basic human need to be productive. I just don’t believe that the best for all lies in me pursuing my own best interest. I feel that a fundamental shift between what the past has been, and what the future will be is going to take place in the not too distant future. I am not advocating a socialist state, but a concerned people. I think we all know how great the USSR was to live in. SPOILER: it wasnt
            All I want, is a world in which normal people are concerned about what is happening on the other side of the world as well as the other side of the road, and work to make sure that everyone can eat, however that happens. I am not convinced that private enterprise alone can accomplish it. I certainly believe that some things should be public rights, and controlled by the public, not private, such as healthcare, education, certain utilities, and certain kinds of insurance, to name a few.

            I dont think that is a complete breakdown, but It is something. I think the discussion is a healthy one, and look forward to your response.

    • SonicSilicon
    • 9 years ago

    The way I’ve understood this and previous “Internet Tax” bills is that they aren’t Internet Tax bills, but attempts to rewrite interstate tax law. On top of that, it seemed like they would open up the possibility of “double dipping” scenarios where you’d pay sales tax for two states.

    • Skrying
    • 9 years ago

    I can understand the thinking behind a Internet sales tax. The problem is that most people feel over taxed already. Personally though I think we’re simply under served. The funds made from taxes do not go to areas that would best benefit the tax payer.

      • MadManOriginal
      • 9 years ago

      An internet tax doesn’t need any new laws at all, just enforcement of existing use tax laws. I really don’t see a problem with enforcing those existing laws, obviously people don’t want tax laws enforced but enforcing the existing use tax laws would help with all the state budget problems. So you might be able to buy less crap…oh noes.

    • yogibbear
    • 9 years ago

    Consumption tax at retail level akin to Australia’s GST makes a lot of sense. I thought the US of A would already have something like that though? (Not that i know anything about tax or america… *plops on ignorant foreignor hat*)

      • insulin_junkie72
      • 9 years ago

      On the Fourth of July, of all days, it should be pointed out that, right or wrong, Americans have always had a very prickly relationship with taxation 😛

      (Great, now I’ve got old SCHOOLHOUSE ROCK songs running through my head)

      Of course, “Tax the guy who makes more than me” is usually considered acceptable, though 🙂

        • bdwilcox
        • 9 years ago

        Tax the guy who makes more than me is a pretty solid strategy for suicide since half the US population doesn’t pay federal taxes and the top 1% of earners pay 28% of federal taxes, the top 5% of earners pay 44% of federal taxes, and the top 10% of earners pay 55% of federal taxes. In all, the top 1% pay more than the bottom 95%!!! (These statistics come from the Congressional Budget Office and the IRS, BTW: §[<http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/24944.html)<]§ And I hate to tell you, but it's those rich bastards who own companies, hire people, produce things and all-in-all grease the economy. But, yeah, let's soak the rich! Alexis de Tocqueville said it best: "There exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level, and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." (Chapter 3: Social Condition of the Anglo-Americans)

          • LaChupacabra
          • 9 years ago

          Equality of condition is an amazing sociological theory. The fact that people don’t want to share equally in the costs of building roads, funding education, subsidizing healthcare proves that it’s not about who pays the taxes, so long as it IS someone else. A is A, afterall.

          Edit. My favorite counter-point to people who argue that large companies are money grubbing public exploiters, instead of the backbone and basis of our economy, is medical companies with cancer and AIDS research. Neither of these diseases have been cured yet. And research for a cure has been ongoing since before I was born. Think how many billions and billions of dollars has been sunk into just these two diseases, and I bet that the drug companies have never turned a profit with this research. Now how many people do you know who have donated billions and billions of dollars to research and fight these diseases, without any guarantee that they can be cured?

            • sweatshopking
            • 9 years ago

            uhhhhh. AID’s Drugs are worth billions of dollars a year, cancer drugs too. When Brazil decided that saving lives was worth more than corporate profits and broke the patents to allow generic AID’s drug production, the west freaked out. they most certainly have made profits. without a doubt. also, billions of dollars is wasted as each company works on the same breakthroughs using the same techniques, just so they can sell it first. The global pharmaceutical market is estimated to be worth more than $700 billion. They’re also one of the world’s most profitable industries (with profit as a percentage of revenue). check §[<http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2009/industries/21/index.html<]§ for list of big ass pharma companies making insaaane profits. §[<http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18490388/<]§ for the brazil thing. Also,The first recognised cases of AIDS occurred in the USA in the early 1980s, so... you're not very old..

          • MadManOriginal
          • 9 years ago

          I like how your chart starts in the 1980s. The top 20% of households earn 50% of the income in the US, the top 8% earn 28% of the income and income isn’t proportional (number of households ~= percentage of income) until you get to households between $50-95k which is a rather wide range (could be two lower wage earners ~$25k per year to two solidly middle class ‘average’ earners.) So given income disparity is it any wonder taxes paid show a disparity as well?

          Taxes are among the lowest for the wealthy they have ever been…even lower than the Reagan years! In the roughly 90 years of the existence of the personal income tax it’s always been set up to tax the wealthy more than the poor. I guess America has sucked for the last 90 years then? Another thing to realize is that great income disparity often results in civil unrest, sucks you have to know history to realize this, but you can look at taxes that go toward social programs etc as ‘anti-civil unrest’ tax.

          Or maybe we could go back to the halcyon days of the 1950s…Ozzie and Harriet and all that 😉

            • bdwilcox
            • 9 years ago

            /[

            • MadManOriginal
            • 9 years ago

            Always a fine rant from bdwilcox with some sly ‘omg socialist’ thrown in for good measure too! Very entertaining 😉 and well played. But there’s no need to argue with me, argue with the CBO: §[<http://www.cbo.gov/publications/collections/tax/2010/all_tables.pdf<]§ There's this little thing called 'effective tax rate' which is what matters not top marginal rates. All you have to do is take a look at incomes over the time period and see that the top incomes have increased much faster than lower incomes, especially in absolute terms. Again, is it any wonder the top earners are paying a larger share of taxes when income has risen much faster than other groups? This would be true even under a simple flat tax system and it's very simple to understand math so I'm not sure where the confusion is. Or perhaps all those in the bottom half should just be glad they have great jobs provided by those benevolent rich folks, after all they've clearly shared in the rising income this has brought...er, wait a minute. Here's another bit of fun reading: §[<http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~saez/piketty-saezJEP07taxprog.pdf<]§ From the conclusion: q[

            • jpostel
            • 9 years ago

            You got to it before I could MMO, so thanks. The rich have gotten richer and the amount of taxable income for their group has grown accordingly. The IRS data linked in bwilcox’s article tell the tale. From 1980 – 2007, The Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) of the top 1% has grown 14.59 times, while the bottom 50% has increased 3.75 times. The numbers also point out that the top 1% passed the bottom 50% in AGI in 1995 and never looked back. It’s gotten a little crazy since then with the 2007 numbers showing the top 1% AGI being nearly DOUBLE the bottom 50%.

            Frankly, I’m not really sure what’s good or bad about all this, other than the history of nations where the rich-poor divide got this big (or bigger) tend to be oligarchies, and tend to end up in revolution or collapse. Since the US is not an oligarchy (political partisans need to shut up here because both parties have traded power for a long time and neither has done more good/bad than the other) and therefore would only compare to maybe ancient Greece.

            All that said, I’m always perplexed by tax arguments. I’ve been pretty successful for a while and I pay some relatively significant taxes (Fed, NJ, and one of the highest local tax rates in the US). I am, however, fortunate enough to have an accountant that used to work for the Feds. He’s AMAZING, and I never pay a cent over the minimum. I get every deduction that is legally possible for me, and I claim the maximum exemptions so that my paycheck has the least possible taxes withheld. Any person with the means does/should have an accountant as good as mine and therefore is only paying the minimum legal amount (other than flat out tax cheats).

            • Farting Bob
            • 9 years ago

            But once you add in the amount you pay your accountant are you better off than you would be if you did it yourself?

            • bdwilcox
            • 9 years ago

            You have a baby-boom generation where a much larger percentage of the work force is older and more highly skilled thus allowing them to get higher paying jobs. This will always exacerbate income disparity. There are other non-quantitative factors, too, such as a greater number of social welfare programs causing cyclical dependency and poverty (keeping people poor), illegal aliens and those on unemployment who earn very little and only report minimal income (that is, if they report any at all), and rising rates of health insurance and other pre-tax expenses that result in lower effective taxable income (and these are just a few).

            Why anyone would say it’s a bad thing for everybody to earn more just because some earned a greater percentage more is beyond me. And why someone would say that taxes aren’t that bad and then brag about how they weasel out of as much of them as they can just blows my mind.

            BTW, if you want to talk oligarchy, let’s take a look at some numbers. Of the 257 millionaires in Congress (of the assets they’ve reported), 147 are Democrats. Now, assuming for arguments sake, that these are the people most likely to raise income taxes, does it not spark outrage that 57% of the millionaires in Congress would actively inhibit American citizens from becoming wealthy like they are? Notice they don’t tax wealth; they tax income. So they don’t care if they raise taxes to the moon; they’re already rich and their existing wealth won’t be touched. But for those trying to become wealthy like them, they will happily burden their task with oppressive taxation. I would call that the basest form of aristocracy.

            • bdwilcox
            • 9 years ago

            Did you ever study economics? If you had, you’d know it’s marginal rates that spur growth in an economy. And it’s that growth that feeds the coffers to pay for all your pet redistributive “social programs”.

            And only a liberal would decry people earning more, especially everybody earning more, just because some simply earned more than others. (Of course, I’ve already explained why that is with an aging population) You can play with numbers all day, you can rationalize whatever oppressive tax rates you want, but in the end, it’s unethical, it’s against the founding principles of this country, and it’s one of the main reasons we had a revolution in the first place.

            P.S. I also find it highly amusing that you link to the progressivist’s holy grail written by two admitted French socialists. Sacrebleu!

            • hapyman
            • 9 years ago

            I think we are forgetting the role that the Federal Reserve plays in all of this. Of all the un-Constitutional things in this country… this needs to go the first.

            • bdwilcox
            • 9 years ago

            Read the eye-opener of Louis T. McFadden – Chairman of the Banking and Currency Committee for 12 years (bipartisan, serving as both both Democrat and Republican) on the House Floor, June 10, 1932 recorded in the Congressional Record 12595-12603 here:
            §[<http://www.scribd.com/doc/16502353/Congressional-Record-June-10-1932-Louis-T-McFadden<]§ His speech begins in the bottom right-hand column starting with: "Mr. Chairman, we have in this country one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever known. I refer to the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve Banks." It's a little tough to read but it'll blow your mind. (you can zoom in with the controls on the bottom of the page to make reading it a little easier on the eyes)

    • Fighterpilot
    • 9 years ago

    Well unless America is planning on winning “Super Lotto” they’re going to have to raise money somehow to pay off its public debt.
    Either a consumption tax at the retail level and/or a tax on Internet transactions will be the minimum it needs to stave off very bad financial trouble.

      • derFunkenstein
      • 9 years ago

      If I really and truly believed America was going to pay off its public debt, I might get behind this, but let’s be honest – that money is going to come in and go right back out again.

      • bdwilcox
      • 9 years ago

      There’s a simple way of paying off its public debt that always works: first, you stop spending like a drunken sailor in whorehouse, second you lower taxes to spur growth and third, you cut useless, unconstitutional programs and departments whose main purpose is to feed at the public trough. Does anyone here know that the Dept of Energy was started by Jimmy Carter after the “oil crisis” of the 70’s to reduce our dependence on foreign oil? It was so successful (snark) that it now has 100,000 employees and an operational budget of 24.1 billion dollars!!! There’s a start. Department of Education next; goodbye. Department of Agriculture. Department of this. Department of that… I could start trimming back this federal government in no time. Soon, it might even resemble the constitutionally mandated federal government our founding fathers wanted! Heck, we might even have enough money left over to seal the southern border and actually fulfill the federal government’s constitutional duty as set out in Article IV, Section 4!

      I hate to break it to the clowns who think higher taxes will bring in additional tax revenue, but we have the largest tax increase in US history coming in six months. If you think we have deficits, debt and unemployment now, you ain’t seen nothin’ yet. When those tax increases come, whatever shred of life is left in this economy will shrivel up and die.

        • SecretMaster
        • 9 years ago

        Do you have any clue as to how incredibly important and useful the DoE is? The Department of Agriculture is also another important governmental body.

      • YeuEmMaiMai
      • 9 years ago

      get rid of all prograns like welfare, social security, food stamps, and that would cust our spending by at least half. People are not entitled to crap. they want it, they can earn it.

        • Fighterpilot
        • 9 years ago

        Yeah!,the rich could all live in compounds,well guarded of course,and let all those damn freeloading teachers and slackers etc fend for themselves.
        Once the weak have been weeded out you’d be good to go.
        That oughta make America better…..

          • YeuEmMaiMai
          • 9 years ago

          lol only a liberal would try and lump in working people with non working people you know the people that live off of the backs of others (welfare receipiants for example) There are so many charities out there that there is NO NEED for the Government to take care of people that is unless you want them to take care of you while you surrender your rights to them……

          Tell me how hard is it to actually stay in school and complete your education before you pop out kids? Not that hard……..

          14+ trillions in debt and counting……not much longer before the US collapses when it will default on it’s debt…….

            • MadManOriginal
            • 9 years ago

            Tell me how hard it is to stay in school and learn how to write in complete sentences with proper punctuation and not write “it’s (=it is)” instead of “its”?

            Ooh, buuuurrrrnnnn!

    • Flying Fox
    • 9 years ago

    Not the internet tax thing again. Haven’t they taxed us enough already?

    • VILLAIN_xx
    • 9 years ago

    Oh screw that guy, Bill Delahunt.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This