I just LOVE LOVE LOVE the Government. Love it.

[LiveLaughLove]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324705104578151561581708972.html?m od=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

Only in an IRS bureaucrat's world would this happen. And yet, thanks to ObamaCare we are hiring thousands more IRS agents.


Sonnabend, a dealer and collector, died in 2007, leaving a collection of art by Rauschenberg as well as such contemporaries as Andy Warhol and Jasper Johns. It was valued at about $1 billion. Her heirs, Nina Sundell and Antonio Homem, paid about $471 million in taxes on the value of the collection, selling some $600 million worth of art from it to do so.

So they inherit a $1 billion art collection. They have to sell $600 million of it to pay a $471 million inheritance tax. By my calculations that put them $71 million in the hole on the whole deal. Of course, some of you will say, they're rich so what. But what is fair or right about this? A woman collects art to leave to her family, but it has to be immediately sold off to pay the government for what? Nothing. The government just confiscates it. They don't even pay for the funeral with their "take".

Not content with $471 million however, they want more. Much more.

"Canyon" is an art piece with a stuffed bald eagle (legally killed before the laws against it) in it.


But "Canyon" was another story. The presence of the stuffed eagle meant it couldn't be sold without violating the 1940 Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and the 1918 Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Since the artwork couldn't be sold, logic dictated that it be listed as having zero value, which is what the Sonnabend family's three appraisers, one of them Christie's auction house, did.

Makes sense. Can't sell it legally, so it's value is zilch. <Lee Corso>Not so fast!</Lee Corso>


In the summer of 2011, the IRS sent the family an unsigned report appraising "Canyon" at $15 million. When they rejected the valuation, the government upped the ante: The appraisal was increased to $65 million, which yielded a $29.2 million tax bill. And the IRS levied a special "undervaluation penalty" of 40%, applied in cases where a party has made what the IRS deems a "gross understatement" of a property's value. That added $11.2 million to the tab. Plus interest.

Nothing like a little strong arm tactics from our governments agents to warm the heart. These people sound like the mafia, but get to do it all legal like.

I know these people are very rich. I get it. We don't like rich people any more in this country. What keeps going through my head is, if they do this to these people, what will stop them from doing it to my family? Nothing comes to mind.

[Soonerjeepman]

rich or not...that is total BS.

I don't have jack to send to my kids, and I still believe the tax is very unfair.

[Midtowner]

Taxes are part of life and estate taxes past $5MM are absolutely fair. Those devisees did nothing to earn a one-billion dollar art collection, and don't think we're dealing with a bunch of defenseless ne'er do wells. This result almost certainly involved very aggressive and expert tax lawyers as well as tricky accounting. As far as "Canyon" goes, it's an interesting catch-22, and I wonder what a court would have done had the devisees challenged the IRS' finding. The IRS from time to time adopts regulations to handle issues like this, maybe it has them, maybe this is just too unique a situation. There can't be too many items out there which are illegal to sell, yet still legal to own which are valued enough to attract the IRS' attention.

As the taxpayer, I hope the IRS is treating billionaire devisees just as aggressively as they would treat me if I tried creative accounting on my taxes. The more money they collect, the less we borrow.

[LiveLaughLove]

Taxes are part of life and estate taxes past $5MM are absolutely fair. Those devisees did nothing to earn a one-billion dollar art collection, and don't think we're dealing with a bunch of defenseless ne'er do wells. This result almost certainly involved very aggressive and expert tax lawyers as well as tricky accounting. As far as "Canyon" goes, it's an interesting catch-22, and I wonder what a court would have done had the devisees challenged the IRS' finding. The IRS from time to time adopts regulations to handle issues like this, maybe it has them, maybe this is just too unique a situation. There can't be too many items out there which are illegal to sell, yet still legal to own which are valued enough to attract the IRS' attention.

As the taxpayer, I hope the IRS is treating billionaire devisees just as aggressively as they would treat me if I tried creative accounting on my taxes. The more money they collect, the less we borrow.

Mid, you are nothing if not consistent.

I can't even begin to comprehend how you can see this or any other estate tax as fair when it means you must sell off what you are given by your family member to pay the government.

How the government "deserves" anything because somebody dies is beyond my comprehension of any definition of the word "fair".

The inheritor didn't do anything to "earn" it. So frigging what. They did something right in the donors mind to deserve it, take care of them in old age, get groceries for them, keep them company, whatever. That should be enough. It was THEIRS to give to them. It certainly wasn't the governments.

Beyond that, the real travesty is how can something that can't be sold, be valued at anything at all? Let alone multi-millions of dollars. It's simply ludicrous.

[KantoSooner]

If we must have taxes to support legitimate government functions, then there is only one tax that makes any sense at all: income tax on individuals. At a flat rate. With no deductions for anything.


All the rest of it is crap that is expressly designed to achieve a social end (and is therefore illegitimate) or to provide a loophole for some special interest (and is therefore illegitimate).

Instead of hiring more tax agents, we should be erasing most of the tax code and thus releasing hundreds of thousands of IRS agents, tax preparers and CPA's back into the work force to do real and productive work.

[FaninAma]

Blame Lincoln. He was the first president to try and institute an income tax.

BTW Mid, you are absolutely green with class envy. What happened, did a rich guy insult you or somebody in your family? That is one of the 7 deadly sins you know. Seriously though, it is a very ugly personal character trait.

Wahhhhh, life is unfair so I am going to vote for liberal politicians who will make it fair.

[KantoSooner]

Interestingly, our entire government was supported largely by liquor taxes until prohibition. I am forced to conclude that:

1. Our government used to be a lot smaller than it is today.
and
2. Our forefathers drank like goddamned Irish tugboat captains.

[FaninAma]

Interestingly, our entire government was supported largely by liquor taxes until prohibition. I am forced to conclude that:

1. Our government used to be a lot smaller than it is today.
and
2. Our forefathers drank like goddamned Irish tugboat captains.

Should I be offended? Is it politically incorrect to not be offended when someone insults your ethnicity because I am absolutley not offended. In fact, if you are ever invited to an Irish Catholic wedding or reception you absolutely don't want to miss it.

[pphilfran]

If we must have taxes to support legitimate government functions, then there is only one tax that makes any sense at all: income tax on individuals. At a flat rate. With no deductions for anything.


All the rest of it is crap that is expressly designed to achieve a social end (and is therefore illegitimate) or to provide a loophole for some special interest (and is therefore illegitimate).

Instead of hiring more tax agents, we should be erasing most of the tax code and thus releasing hundreds of thousands of IRS agents, tax preparers and CPA's back into the work force to do real and productive work.


I agree...a bloated tax code is the problem and not the tax rates...

My goal would be to eliminate the IRS and bankrupt H&R Block...

[Bourbon St Sooner]

I'm no tax expert, but I'm guessing with a little bit of tax planning they could have moved the art into a non-profit foundation before the old lady croaked if they wanted to keep the collection together. I think that's what old man Getty did with his art collection

[KantoSooner]

Should I be offended? Is it politically incorrect to not be offended when someone insults your ethnicity because I am absolutley not offended. In fact, if you are ever invited to an Irish Catholic wedding or reception you absolutely don't want to miss it.

'Irish Tugboat Captain' is an ethnic group?

In all seriousness, you should take it as a massive complement. Note that I did not say 'drunken' or any other perjorative. The 'goddamned' part was meant to amplify or maximize the overall typograph.

Now, if you've ever encountered tug boat captains, you will remember several things about them. First, they seem to never shave, but to never grow full on beards, either. They somehow keep a ten day growth, permanently. It's miraculous.
Second, they tend to have children strewn up and down whatever waterway they work. I've never seen a single group of men who were more capable of talking women young and old into the capital act. And in virtually any location, in any weather. On a dock in an approaching hurricane? Why not?
Third, they are almost never without booze. In my youth, this was in the form of pints of whisky in the pocket of their pants. After the coast guard started frowning on this, then the bottle stashes started. I have high confidence that, even today, if you were a touch thirsty and were on a tug boat, you'd only need to begin peering into nooks and crannies and taking a bit of a jump up to look on top of cabinets and you'd quickly find a veritable mini-bar at your disposal.
I then took the tugboat captain part and paired it with the further amplifier of men identified with a hearty taste for John Barleycorn. If a normal tugboat captain drinks like a Nordic hero, what then must an IRISH tugboat captain do. Ye. Gods.
So, it was not meant as a slur but as recognition of men who stride, manfully, through blood alcohol contents that would fell the rest of us like giant redwoods crashing to earth. Think on this the next time you visit your local and slap your money on across the rail with authority and pride!

[Midtowner]

Mid, you are nothing if not consistent.

I can't even begin to comprehend how you can see this or any other estate tax as fair when it means you must sell off what you are given by your family member to pay the government.

How the government "deserves" anything because somebody dies is beyond my comprehension of any definition of the word "fair".

The government costs money to run. We send folks to the government to make rules, go to war, etc. That costs money. The estate tax is the fairest of them all. The people paying it are dead and don't lose out one bit on what they earned. Much better than the income tax which takes away from current earnings. Maybe it even stimulates the economy in a "you can't take it with you" sense it probably does.


The inheritor didn't do anything to "earn" it. So frigging what. They did something right in the donors mind to deserve it, take care of them in old age, get groceries for them, keep them company, whatever. That should be enough. It was THEIRS to give to them. It certainly wasn't the governments.

Well the tax code says otherwise.


Beyond that, the real travesty is how can something that can't be sold, be valued at anything at all? Let alone multi-millions of dollars. It's simply ludicrous.

It's a funny thing the way regulations work sometimes. There are unintended consequences. I'm sure there's a regulation on how things are appraised and that the regulation was probably followed. The editorial's accusation of the retaliatory hike in the value isn't supported by anything but mere hyperbole. I'm sure the regulation didn't leave a lot to the discretion of the individual agents or really anyone else. That's generally a good thing. I don't want IRS agents to do any more or less than the law allows.

[KantoSooner]

When you add up the taxes we pay, income, gas, sales, local, State, tobacco, alcohol, service, import duties etc. etc. etc. we have an effective tax burden many times greater than the mere income tax bracket would imply.

If, after surviving the predation of our government for a lifetime, after spending a life like a damn wild animal trying to escape the clutches of a rapacious, vicious, pitiless band of faceless assassins who will stop at nothing to destroy your life, if after all that, you have some little nest egg to pass along to your kids, or a paid for home in which your grandchildren can live without spending their lives in bondage to the bank, that the government says not only that you can't pass it on, but that the collective owns it BY RIGHT, then we have truly parted company from all reason.

Estate taxes are not 'fair' or 'without harm', they are the most hideous obscenity imaginable. They are the equivalent of stripping off a dead man's clothes and then parading down the street wearing them and being proud of your good fashion sense.

They are the raping of the dead to appease the greed of people in government who quite clearly have lost all concept of the worth and meaning of money as well as their essential moral compass.

There simply are no counter arguments.

[Midtowner]

Estate taxes are not 'fair' or 'without harm', they are the most hideous obscenity imaginable. They are the equivalent of stripping off a dead man's clothes and then parading down the street wearing them and being proud of your good fashion sense.

Only if the dead man's clothes are worth about five-million bucks or higher.

[pphilfran]

I think estate taxes are a crock of ****...

The guy pushing up daisies has already paid all taxes required on the money earned..paid all sales taxes on the products bought...and then the government says that since the guy is dead the government deserves the money more than the heirs...

[olevetonahill]

By the time I die the ****in IRS can get whatever they want from the Natty Brewers

[SoonerorLater]

Taxes are part of life and estate taxes past $5MM are absolutely fair. Those devisees did nothing to earn a one-billion dollar art collection, and don't think we're dealing with a bunch of defenseless ne'er do wells. This result almost certainly involved very aggressive and expert tax lawyers as well as tricky accounting. As far as "Canyon" goes, it's an interesting catch-22, and I wonder what a court would have done had the devisees challenged the IRS' finding. The IRS from time to time adopts regulations to handle issues like this, maybe it has them, maybe this is just too unique a situation. There can't be too many items out there which are illegal to sell, yet still legal to own which are valued enough to attract the IRS' attention.

As the taxpayer, I hope the IRS is treating billionaire devisees just as aggressively as they would treat me if I tried creative accounting on my taxes. The more money they collect, the less we borrow.

"Those devisees did nothing to earn a one-billion dollar art collection" Well neither did the government.

[OUinFLA]

Perhaps it would have been cheaper to put her on life-support forever.

[olevetonahill]

Perhaps it would have been cheaper to put her on life-support forever.

Heh, And let the Gov. Pay for it

[LiveLaughLove]

If we must have taxes to support legitimate government functions, then there is only one tax that makes any sense at all: income tax on individuals. At a flat rate. With no deductions for anything.


All the rest of it is crap that is expressly designed to achieve a social end (and is therefore illegitimate) or to provide a loophole for some special interest (and is therefore illegitimate).

Instead of hiring more tax agents, we should be erasing most of the tax code and thus releasing hundreds of thousands of IRS agents, tax preparers and CPA's back into the work force to do real and productive work.

100% this.

The crap about an inheritance tax being the most fair is just garbage. It was already taxed when the guy was alive.

Most Americans wish to leave their family in a better situation than they had. Hence, wanting to strive for more, the whole capitalist thing.

This is punitive for no reason other than they can. In this world, might makes right. You get class envy going, add in some greed, and throw in the pitchfork masses and you have an inheritance tax.

It's not right, just because it's law. There are a bunch of laws that big government types have come up with that are wrong, real wrong, and really really wrong. This is the last of those choices.

I don't bust my butt so my family will have to sell it to give the money to the government. I don't have $5 million worth, but I certainly plan on it. If I have to go "illegal" or extremely creative to protect it for them. I will.

Besides, it won't stay at $5 million for very long. As the Dems spend, it will get lowered more and more.

How about the government cut spending, before stealing from families. I like that idea much better.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Mid, you are nothing if not consistent.

I can't even begin to comprehend how you can see this or any other estate tax as fair when it means you must sell off what you are given by your family member to pay the government.

How the government "deserves" anything because somebody dies is beyond my comprehension of any definition of the word "fair".

The inheritor didn't do anything to "earn" it. So frigging what. They did something right in the donors mind to deserve it, take care of them in old age, get groceries for them, keep them company, whatever. That should be enough. It was THEIRS to give to them. It certainly wasn't the governments.

Beyond that, the real travesty is how can something that can't be sold, be valued at anything at all? Let alone multi-millions of dollars. It's simply ludicrous.get used to it. It's only going to get worse.

[Midtowner]

"Those devisees did nothing to earn a one-billion dollar art collection" Well neither did the government.

They provide defense, infrastructure, etc. Of course they did.

[LiveLaughLove]

They provide defense, infrastructure, etc. Of course they did.

When defense and infrastructure was all that was being paid for, we didn't need gimmicks like an inheritance tax and you know it.

The richest counties in the USA are the ones around Washington DC. That's not by chance or dumb luck. That's where most of our tax money goes.

So we need an inheritance tax so a can shift money from rich people and give it to rich people that can buy votes. There's the Washington two step.

[diverdog]

Interestingly, our entire government was supported largely by liquor taxes until prohibition. I am forced to conclude that:

1. Our government used to be a lot smaller than it is today.
and
2. Our forefathers drank like goddamned Irish tugboat captains.

That and tariffs.

[diverdog]

I think estate taxes are a crock of ****...

The guy pushing up daisies has already paid all taxes required on the money earned..paid all sales taxes on the products bought...and then the government says that since the guy is dead the government deserves the money more than the heirs...

Phil:

Explain to me what taxes are paid on art? In some cases art can be used as a tax shelter and families like the Lauders have managed to avoid millions in taxes.

[Sooner5030]

both estate and property taxes are pure evil......IMO

If you need revenue...which most of you Statist do....please take it all from flat-income, sales or VATs.

[MR2-Sooner86]

Taxes are part of life and estate taxes past $5MM are absolutely fair. Those devisees did nothing to earn a one-billion dollar art collection, and don't think we're dealing with a bunch of defenseless ne'er do wells. This result almost certainly involved very aggressive and expert tax lawyers as well as tricky accounting. As far as "Canyon" goes, it's an interesting catch-22, and I wonder what a court would have done had the devisees challenged the IRS' finding. The IRS from time to time adopts regulations to handle issues like this, maybe it has them, maybe this is just too unique a situation. There can't be too many items out there which are illegal to sell, yet still legal to own which are valued enough to attract the IRS' attention.

As the taxpayer, I hope the IRS is treating billionaire devisees just as aggressively as they would treat me if I tried creative accounting on my taxes. The more money they collect, the less we borrow.

The government costs money to run. We send folks to the government to make rules, go to war, etc. That costs money. The estate tax is the fairest of them all. The people paying it are dead and don't lose out one bit on what they earned. Much better than the income tax which takes away from current earnings. Maybe it even stimulates the economy in a "you can't take it with you" sense it probably does.

Well the tax code says otherwise.

It's a funny thing the way regulations work sometimes. There are unintended consequences. I'm sure there's a regulation on how things are appraised and that the regulation was probably followed. The editorial's accusation of the retaliatory hike in the value isn't supported by anything but mere hyperbole. I'm sure the regulation didn't leave a lot to the discretion of the individual agents or really anyone else. That's generally a good thing. I don't want IRS agents to do any more or less than the law allows.

Statist gonna state.

[olevetonahill]

I think estate taxes are a crock of ****...

The guy pushing up daisies has already paid all taxes required on the money earned..paid all sales taxes on the products bought...and then the government says that since the guy is dead the government deserves the money more than the heirs...


Phil:

Explain to me what taxes are paid on art? In some cases art can be used as a tax shelter and families like the Lauders have managed to avoid millions in taxes.

DD yer smarter than that Bro , Re-Read his post again

[diverdog]

DD yer smarter than that Bro , Re-Read his post again


Vet:

Smarter than what? If I buy a piece of art work for $50,000 and it appreciates to a million dollars at what point did I pay taxes on the gain? If I sold that artwork for a million I would pay taxes and if it goes to my heirs I would pay taxes.

You guys are bitching about inheritance taxes. Explain to me how you would replace that income if you got rid of it?

I am for a $5 million dollar exemption after that taxes should take effect.

[LiveLaughLove]

Vet:

Smarter than what? If I buy a piece of art work for $50,000 and it appreciates to a million dollars at what point did I pay taxes on the gain? If I sold that artwork for a million I would pay taxes and if it goes to my heirs I would pay taxes.

You guys are bitching about inheritance taxes. Explain to me how you would replace that income if you got rid of it?

I am for a $5 million dollar exemption after that taxes should take effect.

They should get taxed if they choose to sell the art. No problem with that from me.

But being forced to sell some to be able to keep some is obscene. Some of that probably has memories attached that are worth more than money. Its unconscionable to force them to decide which of those memories they sell and which they get to keep by the grace of the government.

If they choose of their own volition to sell, then fine, tax away. Otherwise make the government fit within the constraints of reasonable budgets. This is downright anti-American, or at least it used to be.

[LiveLaughLove]

Vet:

Smarter than what? If I buy a piece of art work for $50,000 and it appreciates to a million dollars at what point did I pay taxes on the gain? If I sold that artwork for a million I would pay taxes and if it goes to my heirs I would pay taxes.

You guys are bitching about inheritance taxes. Explain to me how you would replace that income if you got rid of it?

I am for a $5 million dollar exemption after that taxes should take effect.

They should get taxed if they choose to sell the art. No problem with that from me.

But being forced to sell some to be able to keep some is obscene. Some of that probably has memories attached that are worth more than money. Its unconscionable to force them to decide which of those memories they sell and which they get to keep by the grace of the government.

If they choose of their own volition to sell, then fine, tax away. Otherwise make the government fit within the constraints of reasonable budgets. This is downright anti-American, or at least it used to be.

[sappstuf]

Vet:

Smarter than what? If I buy a piece of art work for $50,000 and it appreciates to a million dollars at what point did I pay taxes on the gain? If I sold that artwork for a million I would pay taxes and if it goes to my heirs I would pay taxes.

You guys are bitching about inheritance taxes. Explain to me how you would replace that income if you got rid of it?

I am for a $5 million dollar exemption after that taxes should take effect.

Easy. Cut spending... Next!

[olevetonahill]

Vet:

Smarter than what? If I buy a piece of art work for $50,000 and it appreciates to a million dollars at what point did I pay taxes on the gain? If I sold that artwork for a million I would pay taxes and if it goes to my heirs I would pay taxes.

You guys are bitching about inheritance taxes. Explain to me how you would replace that income if you got rid of it?

I am for a $5 million dollar exemption after that taxes should take effect.

Whoa up their Sea Biscuit . Where ya see ME bitchin about that tax. I done said Ima drank up everything I have and they can have the Pizz thats left over

Now back to yer Appreciation in value. My opinion is if ya buy sompun fer 50K and it appreciates to a Mil yer one lucky bastage, But NO ONE should have to pay taxes on the Increased value until ya sell it

A fer instance
I buy a xyz fer 100 bucks, YOU really like an admire that xyz so at My death I want YOU to have it so I leave it to in my will. Unbeknownst to either of us that xyz has went up in value to a Brazillion dollars to some arsehole collector. You saying its right that the Gov. jump in and try to make YOU pay Taxes on that percieved value?
So you end up having to sell the xyz and nobody but the ****in Gov and some arsehole collector come out Happy.

Me Im dead so IDGAS enjoy yer inheritance

[SCOUT]

If I buy something for $100, I have paid taxes on my earnings, and will pay sales tax on the purchase. Let's say it appreciates to $1,000 by the time I die. If it is included in the inheritance to my kids which exceeds whatever the arbitrary threshold is at that time, they would pay the inheritance tax. They then choose to sell it and would pay income tax on the sale. Help me understand how double taxation isn't applicable.

[olevetonahill]

If I buy something for $100, I have paid taxes on my earnings, and will pay sales tax on the purchase. Let's say it appreciates to $1,000 by the time I die. If it is included in the inheritance to my kids which exceeds whatever the arbitrary threshold is at that time, they would pay the inheritance tax. They then choose to sell it and would pay income tax on the sale. Help me understand how double taxation isn't applicable.

Just make sure ya dont try to leave anything to DD , That ungrateful bastage will just sell it and give the money to the Gov.

[diverdog]

If I buy something for $100, I have paid taxes on my earnings, and will pay sales tax on the purchase. Let's say it appreciates to $1,000 by the time I die. If it is included in the inheritance to my kids which exceeds whatever the arbitrary threshold is at that time, they would pay the inheritance tax. They then choose to sell it and would pay income tax on the sale. Help me understand how double taxation isn't applicable.

If you sell it you would pay taxes on the difference between what its value was at when you got it and when you sold it.

[diverdog]

Just make sure ya dont try to leave anything to DD , That ungrateful bastage will just sell it and give the money to the Gov.

Send them to me first and I will let them talk to our trust advisors. We would make sure they would pay the least amount possible. :witless:

https://www.wilmingtontrust.com/wtcom/index.jsp?section=WAS&fileid=1179416976020

[diverdog]

Easy. Cut spending... Next!

Be careful what you ask for. :witless:

[XingTheRubicon]

One has to wonder what kind of deep emotional scars have to occur for someone to side with the gov't raping a dead U.S. citizen of their life savings.

[KantoSooner]

Only if the dead man's clothes are worth about five-million bucks or higher.

Winston Churchill: "Would you sleep with me to save England?"

Woman: "Of course!"

Winston: "Would you sleep with me for $100?"

Woman: "What do you think I am?"

Winston: "We've already established that, now we're just haggling over price."

When the government attempts to justify estate taxes by pointing out that there is an exemption under a certain amount, they are just invoking jealousy and envy to buy votes in favor. The principle remains the same: the property in question was taxed as it was earned in life. On what basis, other than the barrel of a gun, can the government justify confiscating a man's wealth once he's dead and can no longer fight them?

[Midtowner]

One has to wonder what kind of deep emotional scars have to occur for someone to side with the gov't raping a dead U.S. citizen of their life savings.

Raping? Like legitimate rape?

The dead don't care, they're on to the next thing, whatever that is. If I'm raising government revenue, the dead is a great place. And we're talking about something like .00000000001% of estates worth in excess of $5MM. And those will net significant revenue for the government. The cap probably should go back to the neighborhood of $250K, actually. I'd much rather see tax here than on income or sales or just about anything else.

This is a non-issue, just a dogmatic thing to whine about.

[diverdog]

Winston Churchill: "Would you sleep with me to save England?"

Woman: "Of course!"

Winston: "Would you sleep with me for $100?"

Woman: "What do you think I am?"

Winston: "We've already established that, now we're just haggling over price."

When the government attempts to justify estate taxes by pointing out that there is an exemption under a certain amount, they are just invoking jealousy and envy to buy votes in favor. The principle remains the same: the property in question was taxed as it was earned in life. On what basis, other than the barrel of a gun, can the government justify confiscating a man's wealth once he's dead and can no longer fight them?

Honestly once he is dead it is no longer his wealth. He is dead.

The one good argument that I have heard is that it keeps our nation innovative and does not create the idle rich like they have in Europe.

[sappstuf]

The Dead do care... They have been voting Democrat in large numbers for years. Maybe this will get them to switch parties.

[okie52]

The Dead do care... They have been voting Democrat in large numbers for years.

LOL...0 brain activity is a requirement.

[KantoSooner]

Honestly once he is dead it is no longer his wealth. He is dead.

The one good argument that I have heard is that it keeps our nation innovative and does not create the idle rich like they have in Europe.

Sigh. We come once more to a fundamental difference of opinion. I feel strongly that it's unseemly to strip the rings off the fingers of the dead, pilfer their wallets and market their bodies as swine feed. Others think it's a dandy idea so long as we do it in a group and split the proceeds up with others.

The old Soviet Union would harvest the blood from the dead and use it to stock their blood banks on the theory that the state had fed these people from birth and were 'owed' what could be used of their bodies. What's the difference between this and estate taxes?

[Midtowner]

Sigh. We come once more to a fundamental difference of opinion. I feel strongly that it's unseemly to strip the rings off the fingers of the dead, pilfer their wallets and market their bodies as swine feed. Others think it's a dandy idea so long as we do it in a group and split the proceeds up with others.

The old Soviet Union would harvest the blood from the dead and use it to stock their blood banks on the theory that the state had fed these people from birth and were 'owed' what could be used of their bodies. What's the difference between this and estate taxes?

Well, we could just tax it at the ordinary income rate and that way, we're not robbing the dead, we're taxing the income to the party receiving it. Sound better? And your hyperbole here is just off the charts.

The difference between draining the blood from corpses?

First off, if it's safe, that sounds like a damned good idea. In most states, you can't sell your blood, so it has no value and it is extremely valueless to the dead person and of no benefit to the family unless there is some religious objection. I'd be in favor of this, but again, it sounds really unsafe.

As far as the estate taxes, it's not the dead being taxed, it's the person receiving the bequest, and only if the bequest exceeds $5MM. In theory, someone with a very large estate could make a lot of $5MM bequests and the estate wouldn't pay a penny. We're talking not about the 1%ers, but rather the .1%ers here. We're talking about a tax, which when applicable (rarely the case) is effectively around 15% due to all of the available deductions. Taxing these transactions which only affect a very small percentage of Americans adds $141 billion in revenue.

We have a debt, someone has to pay, this seems like a good place to obtain revenue. I'd raise taxes here before just about anywhere else.

http://www.cbpp.org/files/estatetaxmyths.pdf

[KantoSooner]

Actually you can use blood from corpses if you withdraw it very soon after death...and presuming they were not carrying some sort of blood borne disease. It still seems a tad invasive for the government to assume ownership over your body when you die. This is largely because I still hold to the quaint old notion that I am part of this country by consent and that I have some form of existence separate from and superior to that of "chattel of the state".

I mean, I would assume that you could find perverts who'd like to have sex with corpses and would pay money to do so. Would our national financial need then justify the government seizing bodies of the dead and pimping them out to perverts in California for money? Afterall, we need the money to pay down debt and it's not like the dead are going to care about how their body is used. Right?

Aside: thank you for your comment on my hyperbole. I do good work sometimes. Rabble rousing is one of my gifts.

As to your assertion that, since we have a debt and must pay it, we should take the money from whatever source available and, the victims are dead and could have probably found a way to avoid the tax and are rich people anyway, what I see is a rationalization of something that would appear to be, even to you, extremely unpleasant. Call it what you will, but you're subverting the will of people regarding the distribution of their personal property, fairly gained and taxed in life. And you're waiting until after they're dead to do it. Something is wrong there.

All this said, I fully expect all taxes to rise and, would the monies so raised actually go to debt reduction, I'd be in favor of it. The problem is that any additional money raised will just be thrown on the fire and, when the blaze dies down, the pols will be standing there with paws outstretched, looking for more, and more, and more, and more. Not because they're bad people, but because they are weak, wan, sinecure chasers who've found a sugar teat and won't risk it being pulled away from them.

[XingTheRubicon]

Well, we could just tax it at the ordinary income rate and that way, we're not robbing the dead, we're taxing the income to the party receiving it. Sound better?
http://www.cbpp.org/files/estatetaxmyths.pdf


It's not income, wizard. It's someone's post tax assets.



If it's wrong, it's wrong. Doesn't matter how wealthy the targets happen to be. I know you like it 'cause it "sticks it to some anonymous rich family" but this is how incredibly small people think.

[cleller]

Honestly once he is dead it is no longer his wealth. He is dead.


Does that mean that the government should just take it, and redistribute it? If people felt their work and earnings would be taken upon death, life would be much less important, and satisfactory. Our whole economy would suffer from the malaise.

We discussed once the BS situation families can face when a man that has broken his back to build a large farm dies. The family can sometimes be forced to either sell it, or mortgage it to pay taxes keep it. Effectively buying back their own farm back from the government.

[Midtowner]

Redistribute... such a loaded word.

Should it be used to pay for defense? Infrastructure? Social safety nets? Paying off debt?

And good Lord, there you [the royal you] with the hyperbole.


If people felt their work and earnings would be taken upon death, life would be much less important, and satisfactory. Our whole economy would suffer from the malaise.

What in the eff...? No one has ever said we should confiscate every last penny. You should be able to inherit wealth. I think that's part of the deal in this country. The government has to look for places to get revenue. We insist on having a military big enough to take on every other organized military force in the world at the same time (or so it would seem), we insist on doing lots of things which cost money. Tax is not theft, it's us paying for the protection of government, which is in essence a benevolent (mostly) protection racket. Want no government and probably no tax? Maybe check out the Congo Republic or whatever it's called these days.

We're talking about an effective rate of 15% or so on assets above $5MM for a single person or $10MM for a married couple.

The farm example is easy... you get a $5 million dollar farm and put a mortgage on it. If it's a $5MM farm, it can pay that mortgage off in no time flat. Or you can sell the farm and keep all but 15% or so. Oh...the..horror. Also, the farm example isn't a good one because only an idiot would have a $5MM farm in a sole proprietorship. In your example, I'd call the estate tax a righteous stupid tax.

[Curly Bill]

One has to wonder what kind of deep emotional scars have to occur for someone to side with the gov't raping a dead U.S. citizen of their life savings.

Me thinks you've hit on something here!

[diverdog]

Does that mean that the government should just take it, and redistribute it? If people felt their work and earnings would be taken upon death, life would be much less important, and satisfactory. Our whole economy would suffer from the malaise.

We discussed once the BS situation families can face when a man that has broken his back to build a large farm dies. The family can sometimes be forced to either sell it, or mortgage it to pay taxes keep it. Effectively buying back their own farm back from the government.

Cleller:

Only a very very small fraction of farmers would face the estate tax issue. I think it is like 3000th of a percent of all farmers. Most of the farmers that face this tax are either large corporate style farms or farms that appreciate radically because of development pressures.

[Curly Bill]

Cleller:

Only a very very small fraction of farmers would face the estate tax issue. I think it is like 3000th of a percent of all farmers. Most of the farmers that face this tax are either large corporate farms or farms that appreciate radically because of development pressures. In both cases I would be fine with taxing the estates.

Wow, that's a shocker!

[pphilfran]

Redistribute... such a loaded word.

Should it be used to pay for defense? Infrastructure? Social safety nets? Paying off debt?

And good Lord, there you [the royal you] with the hyperbole.



What in the eff...? No one has ever said we should confiscate every last penny. You should be able to inherit wealth. I think that's part of the deal in this country. The government has to look for places to get revenue. We insist on having a military big enough to take on every other organized military force in the world at the same time (or so it would seem), we insist on doing lots of things which cost money. Tax is not theft, it's us paying for the protection of government, which is in essence a benevolent (mostly) protection racket. Want no government and probably no tax? Maybe check out the Congo Republic or whatever it's called these days.

We're talking about an effective rate of 15% or so on assets above $5MM for a single person or $10MM for a married couple.

The farm example is easy... you get a $5 million dollar farm and put a mortgage on it. If it's a $5MM farm, it can pay that mortgage off in no time flat. Or you can sell the farm and keep all but 15% or so. Oh...the..horror. Also, the farm example isn't a good one because only an idiot would have a $5MM farm in a sole proprietorship. In your example, I'd call the estate tax a righteous stupid tax.

You hit on the root cause of the problem...without this type thinking (by the electorate or the elected) we wouldn't need to "The government has to look for places to get revenue. "

[Midtowner]

And there are lots of ways to scheme around an estate tax when you've put the farm into a corporation.

[pphilfran]

And there are lots of ways to scheme around an estate tax when you've put the farm into a corporation.

Another key point..plan wisely and you can shoot the finger to our current tax code...

[diverdog]

And there are lots of ways to scheme around an estate tax when you've put the farm into a corporation.

I mispoke because estate taxes do not apply to corporations.

[diverdog]

Another key point..plan wisely and you can shoot the finger to our current tax code...

I think I said that to vet.

[Midtowner]

You hit on the root cause of the problem...without this type thinking (by the electorate or the elected) we wouldn't need to "The government has to look for places to get revenue. "

The funny thing is, you cut the military by let's say half (and we'd still be far and away the most expensive on Earth) and that would likely plunge us into a depression. Government spending (a/k/a "redistribution" is a huge factor in the economy. It's not as if when the government spends money, that money goes 'poof,' it goes to stockholders, salaries, the daycare workers who serve the government employee or contractor's daycare needs, the mortgage companies of all of those government workers with mortgages, etc.

Our economy is addicted to big government spending and when you're addicted, there are two choices--cold turkey, which sometimes hurts like the dickens or by tapering off. The fiscal cliff is cold turkey, the Dems' proposal to cut things over 10 years is tapering off, using hopeful economic growth to fill the void left by decreased spending.

[Midtowner]

I mispoke because estate taxes do not apply to corporations.

The tax would apply to the shares. If you're thinking about a family farm, a big 'ol family farm with $100MM in assets (or $200MM depending on the situation) the deceased might've gone to a business lawyer who put together an S-Corp with 100 shares all retained by the deceased. In the deceased's will, it says "all 100 shares of farmcorp to my son," the shares would be taxable.

[Bourbon St Sooner]

Send them to me first and I will let them talk to our trust advisors. We would make sure they would pay the least amount possible. :witless:

https://www.wilmingtontrust.com/wtcom/index.jsp?section=WAS&fileid=1179416976020

Our tax code will be correct when your trust department is out of business.

[pphilfran]

The funny thing is, you cut the military by let's say half (and we'd still be far and away the most expensive on Earth) and that would likely plunge us into a depression. Government spending (a/k/a "redistribution" is a huge factor in the economy. It's not as if when the government spends money, that money goes 'poof,' it goes to stockholders, salaries, the daycare workers who serve the government employee or contractor's daycare needs, the mortgage companies of all of those government workers with mortgages, etc.

Our economy is addicted to big government spending and when you're addicted, there are two choices--cold turkey, which sometimes hurts like the dickens or by tapering off. The fiscal cliff is cold turkey, the Dems' proposal to cut things over 10 years is tapering off, using hopeful economic growth to fill the void left by decreased spending.

Freeze spending at current levels

[Midtowner]

Freeze spending at current levels

In discretionary spending, I agree. Welfare/entitlements are what they are.

[pphilfran]

In discretionary spending, I agree. Welfare/entitlements are what they are.

Freeze spending at the current total level...you want to spend more on welfare you cut another area (military) or raise SS age, or whatever area floats your boat...

[Midtowner]

Freeze spending at the current total level...you want to spend more on welfare you cut another area (military) or raise SS age, or whatever area floats your boat...

Down for that.

Now get either party to start seriously consider cutting the military.

--not gonna happen.

[FaninAma]

'Irish Tugboat Captain' is an ethnic group?

In all seriousness, you should take it as a massive complement. Note that I did not say 'drunken' or any other perjorative. The 'goddamned' part was meant to amplify or maximize the overall typograph.

Now, if you've ever encountered tug boat captains, you will remember several things about them. First, they seem to never shave, but to never grow full on beards, either. They somehow keep a ten day growth,
permanently. It's miraculous.
Second, they tend to have children strewn up and down whatever waterway they work. I've never seen a single group of men who were more capable of talking women young and old into the capital act. And in virtually any location, in any weather. On a dock in an approaching hurricane? Why not?
Third, they are almost never without booze. In my youth, this was in the form of pints of whisky in the pocket of
their pants. After the coast guard started frowning on this, then the bottle stashes started. I have high confidence that, even today, if you were a touch thirsty and were on a tug boat, you'd only need to begin peering into nooks and crannies and taking a bit of a jump up to look on top of cabinets and you'd quickly find a veritable mini-bar at your disposal.
I then took the tugboat captain part and paired it with the further amplifier of men identified with a hearty taste for John Barleycorn. If a normal tugboat captain drinks like a Nordic hero, what then must an IRISH tugboat captain do. Ye. Gods.
So, it was not meant as a slur but as recognition of men who stride, manfully, through blood alcohol contents that would fell the rest of us like giant redwoods crashing to earth. Think on this the next time you visit your local and
slap your money on across the rail with authority and pride!

I said I wasn't offended. In fact I am proud of my family's hard working, hard drinking, uncomplaining heritage. I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of the political left like the idiots making a big deal of the Penn State sorority's picture at their Mexican Fiesta Party and the accompanying story on Yahoo..

As far as Irish being an ethnic group, it sure looks like it qualifies to me, especially considering my Grandmother spoke Gaelic:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_group

[SoonerorLater]

They provide defense, infrastructure, etc. Of course they did.

The key word is EARN. The government earns squat. All of the items you mentioned were paid for by taxpayers who actually earned the money (less excessive borrowing). The government is just a conduit to implement those things. The government should exist to serve not to rule. Somewhere along the way we as a nation have lost track of that.

[Midtowner]

The key word is EARN. The government earns squat.

Then it would stand to reason we'd be asking our legislators to simply eliminate taxes altogether since the government isn't actually earning them, right? Or perhaps there's a flaw in your dogma?


All of the items you mentioned were paid for by taxpayers who actually earned the money (less excessive borrowing). The government is just a conduit to implement those things. The government should exist to serve not to rule. Somewhere along the way we as a nation have lost track of that.

Without a government, how do you propose we pay for infrastructure, military, etc.

"Serve" is a mushy term. I can tell you that the government hotlines I call frequently have better wait times than my cable company... is that service? What our military's job is actually is called "service." "Earn" is also a pretty mushy word. I'd prefer to say that people in the economy exchange money for goods and services whereas the government collects taxes and provides services. Trying to shoehorn free market concepts onto the government just doesn't work. It exists to serve, businesses exist to make money. Neither is more virtuous, they are both necessary things.

[Sooner5030]

Down for that.

Now get either party to start seriously consider cutting the military.

--not gonna happen.

DoD appropriations for FY13 were less than FY12.....by about $50 billion. That is an actual cut....not sure what world you live in though.

[Midtowner]

DoD appropriations for FY13 were less than FY12.....by about $50 billion. That is an actual cut....not sure what world you live in though.

We left Iraq. It's an actual cut, but going from a war time to a peace time footing isn't really the same thing as the Congress actually cutting away waste.

[Sooner5030]

We left Iraq. It's an actual cut, but going from a war time to a peace time footing isn't really the same thing as the Congress actually cutting away waste.

Non-wartime funding was also cut...so it's not just attributable to the ending of the wars. The force structure will draw down regardless of the sequester. Just like in the early 90s Congress & the executive have used the military to make budgets appear better while ignoring the elephant in the room.....entitlements.

[Midtowner]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/2/2b/U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY_2011.png/800px-U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY_2011.png

The military is something we can go after without really cutting important government services. I'm not sure what vital services for our nation a 10th carrier group provides or why we need the Gerald R. Ford or Ford class carriers at all.

[cleller]

Redistribute... such a loaded word.

Should it be used to pay for defense? Infrastructure? Social safety nets? Paying off debt?

And good Lord, there you [the royal you] with the hyperbole.



What in the eff...? No one has ever said we should confiscate every last penny. You should be able to inherit wealth. I think that's part of the deal in this country. The government has to look for places to get revenue. We insist on having a military big enough to take on every other organized military force in the world at the same time (or so it would seem), we insist on doing lots of things which cost money. Tax is not theft, it's us paying for the protection of government, which is in essence a benevolent (mostly) protection racket. Want no government and probably no tax? Maybe check out the Congo Republic or whatever it's called these days.

We're talking about an effective rate of 15% or so on assets above $5MM for a single person or $10MM for a married couple.

The farm example is easy... you get a $5 million dollar farm and put a mortgage on it. If it's a $5MM farm, it can pay that mortgage off in no time flat. Or you can sell the farm and keep all but 15% or so. Oh...the..horror. Also, the farm example isn't a good one because only an idiot would have a $5MM farm in a sole proprietorship. In your example, I'd call the estate tax a righteous stupid tax.

Lots of strange indignation about people wanting to keep their assets, property. "Royal" indignation maybe, whatever that may mean.

You can't be so separated from the soul of working capitalism that you don't believe this type of taxation doesn't rankle people, and cause some sort of a layoff of their efforts. Maybe its because they employee armies of lawyers and accountants to try and protect them, that's a good thing, right? They enjoy it.

You're response to the farm mortgage illustrates some pretty left-wing, disconnected thinking. You think it would be simple to pay off the mortgage on a $5 million farm? "In no time flat?!" There's a "what the eff?" moment, for ya. Simple? Not without selling the farm. I guess you think making the money thru farming would be simple, right? "What the eff?" x2.

You could drive from OKC to Guymon and pass several farms in excess of $5 million, and never know it. Drive thru Kansas, Nebraska, and you'd pass dozens and dozens. Turn right into Iowa, and you couldn't find a farm for under $5 million. (Those guys are protected by Dems, though) Because that money is tied up in equipment, land, sky high feed and fertilizer (thanks ethanol), and insurance policies. The farmers themselves are sitting on this equity, and still only living a frugal life.

Your answer to them is that they are idiots if they haven't figured out legal ways around keeping the government from taking their property. I'm sure plenty are. Why should you have to pay professionals to keep the government from taking your property? I live among farmers. Not many know what a Roth IRA is, let alone life estates, sole proprietorship, etc.

Take their stuff, call them fools, spread the wealth.

[sappstuf]

We left Iraq. It's an actual cut, but going from a war time to a peace time footing isn't really the same thing as the Congress actually cutting away waste.

Obama thinks it does. He has "war savings" in his plan. He actually counts it as a way to reduce the deficit.

Next he should count the war savings from not going to war with Canada... We could be out of this hole in no time.

[okie52]

Obama thinks it does. He has "war savings" in his plan. He actually counts it as a way to reduce the deficit.

Next he should count the war savings from not going to war with Canada... We could be out of this hole in no time.

Obama should also count our losses for our surrender to Mexico.

[sappstuf]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/2/2b/U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY_2011.png/800px-U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY_2011.png

The military is something we can go after without really cutting important government services.

So the military is not an "important government" service? I would love to see you say that to olevet to his face or pretty much anyone who has put their life on the line for this country.


I'm not sure what vital services for our nation a 10th carrier group provides or why we need the Gerald R. Ford or Ford class carriers at all.

But your ignorance didn't stop you from making the decision they should be cut, did it?

[sappstuf]

Obama should also count our losses for our surrender to Mexico.

He is still figuring out the Peso exchange rate... The Party of Science has always been terrible at math.

[okie52]

He is still figuring out the Peso exchange rate... The Party of Science has always been terrible at math.

LOL...

[pphilfran]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/2/2b/U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY_2011.png/800px-U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY_2011.png

The military is something we can go after without really cutting important government services. I'm not sure what vital services for our nation a 10th carrier group provides or why we need the Gerald R. Ford or Ford class carriers at all.

An excellent chart..keep in mind revenue in 2011 was 2.3 trillion...1.3 trillion deficit...so to cut that deficit in half without revenue increases where do we make the cuts?

Net interest? Can't..in fact it will only climb as the deficits and debt rises...it is projected to grow to 483 billion by 2016
Medicare and Medicaid? How? Which sides will support cuts?
SS? How? Which sides will support cuts?
Other mandatory?
Discretionary? Military?I guess we could cut eliminate one or the other or cut half of each...

So we need extra revenue to have a chance to get where we need to be...yet the proposals coming out of DC only give us 150 billion or so (if we can believe what we are being told)...and a 150 billion a year will hurt the household discretionary spending...

All the while we ignore growing the economy which is the answer to higher revenue (more workers and higher wealth) and lower spending (less welfare)

[SoonerorLater]

Then it would stand to reason we'd be asking our legislators to simply eliminate taxes altogether since the government isn't actually earning them, right? Or perhaps there's a flaw in your dogma?

Without a government, how do you propose we pay for infrastructure, military, etc.

"Serve" is a mushy term. I can tell you that the government hotlines I call frequently have better wait times than my cable company... is that service? What our military's job is actually is called "service." "Earn" is also a pretty mushy word. I'd prefer to say that people in the economy exchange money for goods and services whereas the government collects taxes and provides services. Trying to shoehorn free market concepts onto the government just doesn't work. It exists to serve, businesses exist to make money. Neither is more virtuous, they are both necessary things.

Is there a logical thought in what you just wrote? How could you possibly come up with
"Then it would stand to reason we'd be asking our legislators to simply eliminate taxes altogether since the government isn't actually earning them, right? Or perhaps there's a flaw in your dogma?

The government should collect taxes on behalf of the citizens of the country to provide the narrow constitutionally mandated services as defined by the constitution. The fact the government does not "earn" them is not the issue. My point was to correct your earlier statement that the government does indeed earn it. The government is supposed to represent the constitutionally mandated collective will of the people not the boot heel on the neck of the people. If the Federal Government just did what their original directives were we wouldn't even be having a conversation about estate taxes. How we ever got to a point in this country where people like yourself think it's OK to for the Feds to consfiscate peoples money and property is a sad commentary of what we have become as a nation.

Secondly I'm not trying "shoehorn" free market concepts into government. The government (Federal) shouldn't be providing the vast majority of the services that you indicate they so badly need our taxes to perform.

Here is the Government M O. Meddle in something you have no business meddling in. Create dislocations in the system. Then when problems occur because of the dislocations, create more problems with more meddling to fix the problems they caused in the first place. Just on and on, all the while creating more layers of worthless and expensive bureaucracy. Then taxpayers are supposed to throw their money down this black hole we call government spending. Enough is enough and I've had more than enough.

[LiveLaughLove]

The funny thing is, you cut the military by let's say half (and we'd still be far and away the most expensive on Earth) and that would likely plunge us into a depression. Government spending (a/k/a "redistribution" is a huge factor in the economy. It's not as if when the government spends money, that money goes 'poof,' it goes to stockholders, salaries, the daycare workers who serve the government employee or contractor's daycare needs, the mortgage companies of all of those government workers with mortgages, etc.

Our economy is addicted to big government spending and when you're addicted, there are two choices--cold turkey, which sometimes hurts like the dickens or by tapering off. The fiscal cliff is cold turkey, the Dems' proposal to cut things over 10 years is tapering off, using hopeful economic growth to fill the void left by decreased spending.

This is the liberal problem and solution to everything.

Liberalism is what created this big bloated government. So the solution to the problem from the liberal is <drum roll> more big government! Because hey, we got you addicted you poor schmucks!

Its always the answer. We didn't spend enough on this thing or that thing, otherwise it would have worked like we said it would. So lets spend more!

And hey we can confiscate peoples wealth to do it, because we have the masses on our side!

Might makes right! It ain't stealing when you can pass it as a law!

Brilliant.

[Midtowner]

The government should collect taxes on behalf of the citizens of the country to provide the narrow constitutionally mandated services as defined by the constitution.

Except that the Constitution ain't all that narrow.

[Midtowner]

This is the liberal problem and solution to everything.

Liberalism is what created this big bloated government. So the solution to the problem from the liberal is <drum roll> more big government! Because hey, we got you addicted you poor schmucks!

Its always the answer. We didn't spend enough on this thing or that thing, otherwise it would have worked like we said it would. So lets spend more!

And hey we can confiscate peoples wealth to do it, because we have the masses on our side!

Might makes right! It ain't stealing when you can pass it as a law!

Brilliant.

Actually, you're right, it isn't stealing when you can pass a law. Stealing is generally an unlawful act. Render unto Caesar and all that...

[diverdog]

Is there a logical thought in what you just wrote? How could you possibly come up with
"Then it would stand to reason we'd be asking our legislators to simply eliminate taxes altogether since the government isn't actually earning them, right? Or perhaps there's a flaw in your dogma?

The government should collect taxes on behalf of the citizens of the country to provide the narrow constitutionally mandated services as defined by the constitution. The fact the government does not "earn" them is not the issue. My point was to correct your earlier statement that the government does indeed earn it. The government is supposed to represent the constitutionally mandated collective will of the people not the boot heel on the neck of the people. If the Federal Government just did what their original directives were we wouldn't even be having a conversation about estate taxes. How we ever got to a point in this country where people like yourself think it's OK to for the Feds to consfiscate peoples money and property is a sad commentary of what we have become as a nation.

Secondly I'm not trying "shoehorn" free market concepts into government. The government (Federal) shouldn't be providing the vast majority of the services that you indicate they so badly need our taxes to perform.

Here is the Government M O. Meddle in something you have no business meddling in. Create dislocations in the system. Then when problems occur because of the dislocations, create more problems with more meddling to fix the problems they caused in the first place. Just on and on, all the while creating more layers of worthless and expensive bureaucracy. Then taxpayers are supposed to throw their money down this black hole we call government spending. Enough is enough and I've had more than enough.

if our country had followed your line of thinking we would be a third rate power.

[Turd_Ferguson]

if our country would follow the lib's line of thinking we will be a third rate power.

Indeed.

[MR2-Sooner86]

This thread is funny.

[LiveLaughLove]

if our country had followed your line of thinking we would be a third rate power.

Seems to me we are following the progressive way of thinking and are clearly on or way to becoming a third rate power.

Seems to me the more progressive Europe has become the more completely irrelevant they have become.

Detroit toed the progressive line, its all but dead as city.

California is dying. Those that can are fleeing while the illegals flood the social safety nets.

Yet all of these places just keep trying more and more liberalism. It must work right?

I mean east Germany, the USSR, Cuba, those were all great progressive successes right?

Why of course, as long as you're a party member.

Hyperbole? You bet. But no more so than mid trying to claim that we don't want any government what so ever.

[diverdog]

Seems to me we are following the progressive way of thinking and are clearly on or way to becoming a third rate power.

Seems to me the more progressive Europe has become the more completely irrelevant they have become.

Detroit toed the progressive line, its all but dead as city.

California is dying. Those that can are fleeing while the illegals flood the social safety nets.

Yet all of these places just keep trying more and more liberalism. It must work right?

I mean east Germany, the USSR, Cuba, those were all great progressive successes right?

Why of course, as long as you're a party member.

Hyperbole? You bet. But no more so than mid trying to claim that we don't want any government what so ever.


Let me ask you this. Under a strict reading of the Constitution where does it talk about NASA or the Air Force or even agencies like the SEC?

[FaninAma]

Mid,

Just attended the delivery of a mother who just had her 5th child on Medicaid. All of her other children live with other families. She did have the good sense to put this baby up for adoption. This is exactly the kind or irresponsible behavior progressive social programs encourage. Ther are no requirements for self-responsibility. The government has no safeguards in place to prevent abuse of the system.

[FaninAma]

Let me ask you this. Under a strict reading of the Constitution where does it talk about NASA or the Air Force or even agencies like the SEC?

NASA's constitutional mandate is unclear but the Constitution does authorize the Federal government to provide for the common defense(Air Force) and to regulate interstate commerce(SEC).

I would argue that NASA was a national security response to the Soviet Union's early push to be the first to launce a satellite and their manned space missions.

[KantoSooner]

Careful there, Fanin, you're getting over into that 'interpretation' area on things Constitutional. Purt soon, you're gonna have the constitutional Taliban over here splaining to us how a) the drafters had seances in which they foresaw the internet, etc. and, b) how anything beyond cobblestones, horseshoes and wind power are the work of socialists and need to be immediately abolished.

[diverdog]

NASA's constitutional mandate is unclear but the Constitution does authorize the Federal government to provide for the common defense(Air Force) and to regulate interstate commerce(SEC).

I would argue that NASA was a national security response to the Soviet Union's early
push to be the first to launce a satellite and their manned space missions.

Oh you mean the part in the preamble right before the part that says "promote the general welfare"?

The Constitution is very clear that it is land and naval forces. It also speaks to time constraints on money raised for the military and a militia. And under a strict reading of the Constitution the militia ain't the NG.

[Midtowner]

Mid,

Just attended the delivery of a mother who just had her 5th child on Medicaid. All of her other children live with other families. She did have the good sense to put this baby up for adoption. This is exactly the kind or irresponsible behavior progressive social programs encourage. Ther are no requirements for self-responsibility. The government has no safeguards in place to prevent abuse of the system.

Hey, I'm all for sterilization of anyone receiving any kind of direct subsidy, but I'm going to just guess that our courts would take a dim view of that.

[diverdog]

BTW I think an easy fix to the 401k plan would be to get rid of the catch up provisions.

[FaninAma]

BTW I think an easy fix to the 401k plan would be to get rid of the catch up provisions.

Obama doesn't have the guts to propose that.

[Soonerjeepman]

Hey, I'm all for sterilization of anyone receiving any kind of direct subsidy, but I'm going to just guess that our courts would take a dim view of that.

lol...I actually AGREE with you on that...

[LiveLaughLove]

Oh you mean the part in the preamble right before the part that says "promote the general welfare"?

The Constitution is very clear that it is land and naval forces. It also speaks to time constraints on money raised for the military and a militia. And under a strict reading of the Constitution the militia ain't the NG.

Not much of a constitutional scholar are you? The preamble carries no weight whatsoever. Its just that, a preamble.

The welfare clause is what you are after, which is actually in the Tax and Spending Clause. The word welfare back then, did not mean government assistance to the poor or needy, btw.

The clause says,
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

It's clearly not talking about the populace of the United States, but the entity "The United States".

Justice Joseph Story said in 1833 that this clause was NOT a grant of legislative power, but of taxation power. And that it was for the spending of monies on matters of general interest to the federal government. Once more, the government, NOT the populace.

In fact, it was so strict in needing to be for the WHOLE country that laws were knocked down time and again that only pertained to "local" needs, like agricultural, manufacturing, etc.

It wasn't until the 1930s and FDR packing the court that the general welfare clause was miraculously changed and new meaning found in it for providing welfare.

If our founders had meant to have "welfare" as we know it today, don't you think they would have set some welfare programs up in those days? Seems to me they would have. Yet it took over 150 years to "find" this part of the Constitution.

Don't take my word for it, here's James Madison "Father of the Constitution" on this topic:


With respect to the two words "general welfare," I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators. If the words obtained so readily a place in the "Articles of Confederation," and received so little notice in their admission into the present Constitution, and retained for so long a time a silent place in both, the fairest explanation is, that the words, in the alternative of meaning nothing or meaning everything, had the former meaning taken for granted.


"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."


"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the government is no longer a limited one possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one subject to particular exceptions."


" The government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government."

How about Thomas Jefferson, you know the guy you guys love to quote on church and state? He had a small hand in drafting the Constitution:


"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."


"I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground that 'all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states or to the people.' To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power not longer susceptible of any definition."


"A wise and frugal government ... shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government."


"The majority, oppressing an individual, is guilty of a crime, abuses its strength, and by acting on the law of the strongest breaks up the foundations of society."

There are thousands of quotes from the ones that actual framed the Constitution all saying similar things. Very few of them saw it otherwise. Very few.

If we wanted to change the Constitution we were supposed to do it by amendment. But creative lawyers have figured out how to routinely get around that part of it all too.

You're cracks about NASA and the Air Force aren't even worth retorting to.

[Midtowner]

Not much of a constitutional scholar are you? The preamble carries no weight whatsoever. Its just that, a preamble.

Not much of a Constitutional scholar are you?


How about Thomas Jefferson, you know the guy you guys love to quote on church and state? He had a small hand in drafting the Constitution:

TJ didn't have a small or big hand in drafting the Constitution. He was our ambassador to France at the time. Stating that he had a "small hand" is actually inaccurate. Even the Bill of Rights was adopted while Jefferson was likely on a boat somewhere in the Atlantic.

As to the rest of what you said, here's another excellent Jefferson quote:

"Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence and deem them like the ark of the covenant, too sacred to be touched...institutions must advance also"

As for judicial review, it goes back to 1803 with Marbury v. Madison. Without it, Congress would have no limit on what bills it could pass. There would be no authority but Congress on what it could do. Without the courts, Obamacare wouldn't be a tax, it'd just be a government program and Congress did what the hell it wanted and there was no recourse. I don't imagine that was the founders' intent. Good God... imagine the Oklahoma Legislature without the courts to strike down nearly every piece of crap bill they enact into law.

Quoting founders is iffy at best. There were some, Madison, for example, who wanted Washington to be a monarch, who also really believed the Bill of Rights was unnecessary because the Constitution didn't say the government could do things like establish a state religion, limit speech or the press or quarter soldiers in civilians' homes, so why did we need something telling us we had rights? (laughable in historical context)

These were people who had deep seated fundamental disagreements on just about everything. To pick and choose quotes to represent some monolithic view of the founders is just historically inept.

[LiveLaughLove]

Not much of a Constitutional scholar are you?



TJ didn't have a small or big hand in drafting the Constitution. He was our ambassador to France at the time. Stating that he had a "small hand" is actually inaccurate. Even the Bill of Rights was adopted while Jefferson was likely on a boat somewhere in the Atlantic.

As to the rest of what you said, here's another excellent Jefferson quote:

"Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence and deem them like the ark of the covenant, too sacred to be touched...institutions must advance also"

As for judicial review, it goes back to 1803 with Marbury v. Madison. Without it, Congress would have no limit on what bills it could pass. There would be no authority but Congress on what it could do. Without the courts, Obamacare wouldn't be a tax, it'd just be a government program and Congress did what the hell it wanted and there was no recourse. I don't imagine that was the founders' intent. Good God... imagine the Oklahoma Legislature without the courts to strike down nearly every piece of crap bill they enact into law.

Quoting founders is iffy at best. There were some, Madison, for example, who wanted Washington to be a monarch, who also really believed the Bill of Rights was unnecessary because the Constitution didn't say the government could do things like establish a state religion, limit speech or the press or quarter soldiers in civilians' homes, so why did we need something telling us we had rights? (laughable in historical context)

These were people who had deep seated fundamental disagreements on just about everything. To pick and choose quotes to represent some monolithic view of the founders is just historically inept.

I've read that Jefferson was a rather large part of the drafting of the Constitution. Being an ambassador even in those days didn't disqualify you from being able to have input. The writer of the Declaration was a valuable asset to the founders. Jefferson was a voracious corresponder.

Still Madison was considered the father of it, and his quotes mean something. They aren't ambiguous in the slightest so there is no "picking and choosing". The truth is, he said something you don't like so you dismiss it.

Actions speak louder than words though so I ask again, IF the founders believed in welfare programs, why did they not set any up? Why did it take a packed court in the 1930s to get welfare established as a state institution?

Had the founders never heard of welfare programs? No, they existed and had existed since the beginning of recorded history. Were there no poor to aid? Sure there were. So why didn't they do it?

The reason is, because the Constitution didn't prescribe it. They never intended it. They didn't want any part of it from the central government. States? If they wanted it, fine, but not the federal government.

And as I did say earlier, there were a few dissenting voices, but once more, VERY few.

As a side note, I'll bet you don't mind quoting Jefferson on the separation of church and state do you? One quote (and its misquoted), in one letter, and it fundamentally changed the country.

Quotes are ok, when they fit your agenda. Not so much, when they don't.

[LiveLaughLove]

A man named Gouverneur Morris of Pennsylvania was in charge of the committee to draft the final copy of the Constitution. Other men who had much to do with writing the Constitution included John Dickinson, Gouverneur Morris, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Thomas Paine, Edmund Randolph, James Madison, Roger Sherman, James Wilson, and George Wythe. Morris was given the task of putting all the convention's resolutions and decisions into polished form. Morris actually "wrote" the Constitution.


The U.S. Constitution is the work of several men, directly and indirectly. The three most notable persons whose work influenced the Constitution but who were not involved in its writing are Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and Thomas Paine.


The person most associated with authoring the US Constitution was James Madison, the fourth President of the United States. Primary Author: James Madison (drafted the Virginia Plan). He is known as "The Father of the Constitution." James Madison wrote the Constitution in 1787. The constitution wasn't passed until 1788.

I stand by saying Jefferson had a small hand in it. I'm sure you will stand by being wrong...again.

[Midtowner]

I've read that Jefferson was a rather large part of the drafting of the Constitution. Being an ambassador even in those days didn't disqualify you from being able to have input. The writer of the Declaration was a valuable asset to the founders. Jefferson was a voracious corresponder.

Still Madison was considered the father of it, and his quotes mean something. They aren't ambiguous in the slightest so there is no "picking and choosing". The truth is, he said something you don't like so you dismiss it.

My point is that if I want to say anything about the Constitution, there's a good chance that someone famous wrote a letter to support my argument. And that aside, this was darn near 250 years ago. We didn't have electricity, cars and a bunch of things. The world has changed, so too must the government change with it.


Actions speak louder than words though so I ask again, IF the founders believed in welfare programs, why did they not set any up? Why did it take a packed court in the 1930s to get welfare established as a state institution?

Or how about if the founders didn't believe in federal welfare programs, why not make them unconstitutional? We have all kinds of amendments talking about what the government can't do. Not one on welfare programs. And again, who cares what they wanted? 250 years ago. Irrelevant. Our laws are now interpreted in a manner which provides for this and has provided so for almost 100 years.

[KantoSooner]

Mid, there are some to whom the concept of both 'judge-made law' and an 'evolving/flexible' Constitution are anathema. And that in the face that the first has been Anglo-American legal tradition since well before Magna Carta and the latter since Marbury at least and probably since the first Supreme Court sat after the document was adopted by the states.
You're arguing against counter factuals and will never convince them. Be satisfied that objective reality is on your side and go have a nice bourbon.

[LiveLaughLove]

My point is that if I want to say anything about the Constitution, there's a good chance that someone famous wrote a letter to support my argument. And that aside, this was darn near 250 years ago. We didn't have electricity, cars and a bunch of things. The world has changed, so too must the government change with it.



Or how about if the founders didn't believe in federal welfare programs, why not make them unconstitutional? We have all kinds of amendments talking about what the government can't do. Not one on welfare programs. And again, who cares what they wanted? 250 years ago. Irrelevant. Our laws are now interpreted in a manner which provides for this and has provided so for almost 100 years.

LOL. So your argument now is reduced to, who cares about that old document. We gonna do what we gonna do.

Got it.

Very American of you. I guess we don't need people to take oaths to protect and defend that old rag either, huh.

[LiveLaughLove]

Mid, there are some to whom the concept of both 'judge-made law' and an 'evolving/flexible' Constitution are anathema. And that in the face that the first has been Anglo-American legal tradition since well before Magna Carta and the latter since Marbury at least and probably since the first Supreme Court sat after the document was adopted by the states.
You're arguing against counter factuals and will never convince them. Be satisfied that objective reality is on your side and go have a nice bourbon.

Why have a constitution at all then? Lets just have laws and make and pass them and leave it at that. That's what you espouse with this flexible evolving crap.

I would say find that in the Constitution, but eh, who cares? Right?

Forget that stuff about amendments, that so tedious and yesterday. We just "find" stuff to fit our needs today. And if those needs will someday change, we'll "find" that it evolved again.

That's an absolutely ludicrous way to be governed. By the whims of the majority as it is today, but may not be tomorrow.

[Midtowner]

Does the word "influenced" mean anything to you?

[Midtowner]

LOL. So your argument now is reduced to, who cares about that old document. We gonna do what we gonna do.

Not at all. Its meaning and applicability have changed over time. You can be angry about that, but that's a debate you lost circa 1865.

[diverdog]

Jefferson wanted the Constitution rewritten every generation. He recognized the limitations of a static document.

[LiveLaughLove]

Jefferson wanted the Constitution rewritten every generation. He recognized the limitations of a static document.

And as usual your idea of what he meant by this,and what he actually meant are disparate. He did not mean to redo it to liberalize and grow government. He meant to curtail it by resetting it to the start so to speak.


"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground."

He feared a large central controlling government and wanted to be able to stop that natural progression.


"I see,... and with the deepest affliction, the rapid strides with which the federal branch of our government is advancing towards the usurpation of all the rights reserved to the States, and the consolidation in itself of all powers, foreign and domestic; and that, too, by constructions which, if legitimate, leave no limits to their power... It is but too evident that the three ruling branches of [the Federal government] are in combination to strip their colleagues, the State authorities, of the powers reserved by them, and to exercise themselves all functions foreign and domestic."

Indeed, Jefferson would be wondering why we haven't had another revolution from all of the tyranny of this huge government we have today.


"The tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."


"The greatest [calamity] which could befall [us would be] submission to a government of unlimited powers."


"Whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force."

[diverdog]

And as usual your idea of what he meant by this,and what he actually meant are disparate. He did not mean to redo it to liberalize and grow government. He meant to curtail it by resetting it to the start so to speak.



He feared a large central controlling government and wanted to be able to stop that natural progression.



Indeed, Jefferson would be wondering why we haven't had another revolution from all of the tyranny of this huge government we have today.

ah no you are wrong. He did not believe the dead should rule the living. He expected the country to evolve.


Quotation: "The end of democracy and the defeat of the American Revolution will occur when government falls into the hands of lending institutions and moneyed incorporations."

[LiveLaughLove]

ah no you are wrong. He did not believe the dead should rule the living. He expected the country to evolve.

Yeah, you're right. He was all for this bloated bureaucracy that we have now. Right.

[diverdog]

Yeah, you're right. He was all for this bloated bureaucracy that we have now. Right.

You missed the point. It did not matter what he believed because the constitution would have rewritten without him in the room. He would have been dead.

[KantoSooner]

3XL,
I'll try one more time on this.

"Judge-made laws"
In Anglo-American juriprudence, laws are enacted by whoever the law making body might be. Parliament, the King, or, in our case, Congress. After that, however, as inevitably happens in human affairs, there are arguments over whether a specific set of facts falls on the naughty or nice side of any line established by that law. No matter how much time and effort is expended making the law clear, there will be debates.
That's where judges come in. Somebody has to make the call. And when they do, in our system, they issue explanations of why they made that decision. The decision, and its reasoning become what is called 'precedent' and, in our system precedent then becomes part of the law itself. It is referred to by lawyers in the future who are faced with questions regarding what the law means with specific fact patterns at that future time.
It is, in a sense a fairly democratic process: over time a variety of judges will issue rulings that form a body of interpretation as to what that particular law means when applied to real life. Such rulings can be overturned by higher courts, such rulings can be drowned out by sheer numbers of rulings making opposing interpretations, but each ruliing remains as some voice regarding what the law means.
This is what is meant by 'Judge-made law' and it has been the way laws are interpreted in our society since its founding and in our (legal) predecessor society (England) since courts were first truly organized after the Norman Conquest. It's not any radical deal.

'Flexible Constitution'
As the master law, if you will, of the country, The Constitution is likewise interpreted by judges as they are presented with novel fact patterns. What matters here is not so much whether the given facts were potentially foreseen by the drafters but whether the Constitution speaks to those facts and if so, what it says.
Sometimes new technology is involved. Wire tapping, for instance is an area probably not directly considered by the founders; but the rules under which a government police agency can or can not listen in to your phone calls is most certainly of Constitutional interest and thus it falls to a judge to make that call (pun intended).
Sometimes no new technology but changing attitudes are involved. Gay marriage would be a good example and specifically the intersection of the prerogative of states to regulate such matters as marriage licensing and recognition and Federally protected anti-discrimination laws. Did the founders accept gay marriage? I think not. Did they address it in the Constitution? They did not, at least not in so many words. Therefore as our society, or certaiin sections (states) within it change their attitudes toward that relationship (as enshrined in votes, for example), it falls to courts to interpret whether such state laws are Constitutionally valid. And if so/not, how and why.
This is all that is meant by Constitutional flexibility. It is, too, not a radical concept and falls well within conservative doctrine. So long as there are questions regarding the 'Constitutioinality' of something, there will be the possibility of the interpretation of the document changing.
Much as Jefferson proposed tearing the document up and starting fresh every generation, we do not live with a dead master law. We, as a people, through the agency of our elected and appointed representatives, have, within the confines of very specific rules and procedures, the ability to tweak our Constitutional understanding and the way that document is applied to our daily lives.
And that is neither scary nor radical nor of any recent vintage. Our Constitution has been 'flexible' in this way since the very beginning and, hopefully, will remain so for as long as our country survives.
Have a nice weekend.

[diverdog]

3XL,
I'll try one more time on this.

"Judge-made laws"
In Anglo-American juriprudence, laws are enacted by whoever the law making body might be. Parliament, the King, or, in our case, Congress. After that, however, as inevitably happens in human affairs, there are arguments over whether a specific set of facts falls on the naughty or nice side of any line established by that law. No matter how much time and effort is expended making the law clear, there will be debates.
That's where judges come in. Somebody has to make the call. And when they do, in our system, they issue explanations of why they made that decision. The decision, and its reasoning become what is called 'precedent' and, in our system precedent then becomes part of the law itself. It is referred to by lawyers in the future who are faced with questions regarding what the law means with specific fact patterns at that future time.
It is, in a sense a fairly democratic process: over time a variety of judges will issue rulings that form a body of interpretation as to what that particular law means when applied to real life. Such rulings can be overturned by higher courts, such rulings can be drowned out by sheer numbers of rulings making opposing interpretations, but each ruliing remains as some voice regarding what the law means.
This is what is meant by 'Judge-made law' and it has been the way laws are interpreted in our society since its founding and in our (legal) predecessor society (England) since courts were first truly organized after the Norman Conquest. It's not any radical deal.

'Flexible Constitution'
As the master law, if you will, of the country, The Constitution is likewise interpreted by judges as they are presented with novel fact patterns. What matters here is not so much whether the given facts were potentially foreseen by the drafters but whether the Constitution speaks to those facts and if so, what it says.
Sometimes new technology is involved. Wire tapping, for instance is an area probably not directly considered by the founders; but the rules under which a government police agency can or can not listen in to your phone calls is most certainly of Constitutional interest and thus it falls to a judge to make that call (pun intended).
Sometimes no new technology but changing attitudes are involved. Gay marriage would be a good example and specifically the intersection of the prerogative of states to regulate such matters as marriage licensing and recognition and Federally protected anti-discrimination laws. Did the founders accept gay marriage? I think not. Did they address it in the Constitution? They did not, at least not in so many words. Therefore as our society, or certaiin sections (states) within it change their attitudes toward that relationship (as enshrined in votes, for example), it falls to courts to interpret whether such state laws are Constitutionally valid. And if so/not, how and why.
This is all that is meant by Constitutional flexibility. It is, too, not a radical concept and falls well within conservative doctrine. So long as there are questions regarding the 'Constitutioinality' of something, there will be the possibility of the interpretation of the document changing.
Much as Jefferson proposed tearing the document up and starting fresh every generation, we do not live with a dead master law. We, as a people, through the agency of our elected and appointed representatives, have, within the confines of very specific rules and procedures, the ability to tweak our Constitutional understanding and the way that document is applied to our daily lives.
And that is neither scary nor radical nor of any recent vintage. Our Constitution has been 'flexible' in this way since the very beginning and, hopefully, will remain so for as long as our country survives.
Have a nice weekend.

Jesus I just read your tag line. That is some funny chit.

[KantoSooner]

If you were Mack, with his record, and looked at DKR's record, would you want to wash away that 'mojo'?

I think not.