Again, the title used sarcasm to draw in readers. I really thought people here were intelligent enough to get it. Obama is destroying jobs, not creating them. I do like your ideas for the 68,000, but prefer mine... deport them they are here illegally and criminals even if you forget that they are here illegally!

I fully believe we need to help those who can't help themselves but we seem to have forgotten that those who simply don't want to work shouldn't fall on the backs of those who do. ACA and increasing the minimum wage are just two of the ways the backs of the workers are becoming broken.

Of course the title was misleading. It was meant to draw in readers. The body of the post should have made that completely clear. Having lived in countries with "universal healthcare" and seeing the tax burden that care placed on its citizens, I would never support this bill even if it were written better. We cannot afford this in a good economy and definitely can't afford this now.

I waiver on this. My problem with property tax is that property is usually acquired during a person's career or earning years and is usually considered to be part of that person's retirement fund per se. When that person retires, the tax burden continues to grow and can place an unfair burden on the person who simply worked hard to earn a nice piece of property but can no longer keep up with the burden of keeping that property from the state. On the other hand, one could say that people should consider this when purchasing property and plan on the tax burden as part of their planned expenses for the future. I personally believe that land tax like sales tax should be at the time of sale, and not an annual expense.

Quote clipped to save space only.

I believe the entire concept of running a deficit is simply bad business and a bad role model for the citizenry... if the government doesn't have to be fiscally responsible, why should its citizens? As far as the rest of the post, it was interesting but not exactly related to the thread, unless I simply missed how the bonds issue ties in to tax reform (When I used the tax reform in the title, I meant the literal definition, not the phrase).
Of course, the discussion could take many "faces", or it could be used to spawn different threads such as "how can we make welfare work by putting those recipients who could work to work while taking disabled persons off the roles of welfare" or should we take politics (and tax code) out of the hands of special interests, on and on.
I completely disagree with you on deficit spending for infastructure... as simple as your opinion is to see, it would be just as simple to spend money we have on infastructure by cutting into our bloated budget. I stated previously, we would also have to review our spending habits.

I actually thought about stating they might need an interpreter of the code, but deleted it and many other thoughts in favor of brevity. And yes, I have read SOME of the tax code and certain paragraphs took me several re-reads and a good amount of time to understand.

What would the tax code look like if we sat down a truly bi-partisan group of educated people to review the tax code. By educated, I don't mean that each person would require a degree necessarily, but that they would have to be able to prove that they could write and understand a clearly written sentence. We could pay these people based on a percentage of how much money they cut from the code. I believe such a group could sit down and cut huge amounts from the code; at the same time, we would have to have another bi-partisan group review our government and make suggestions for how to reduce its size to a sustainable level. Again, have an even number from each size and any "tie" would remain unchanged and the group would be payed zero for that area.
It could actually work, but the government would never allow it to happen (hey, you can't cut my job, I need it!).

The first paragraph is spot on. The last sentence of the second paragraph is simply never going to happen and shouldn't. When ALL costs of a product aren't paid by the consumer, there is no incentive for the producer to produce. Actually, these costs ARE part of the "business costs", so they would still be passed on. I do wonder what the costs of goods would look like if we simply removed business and the public from campaigning. In other words, have a fund that pays for a certain amount of campaigning by each valid candidate (by valid I mean that they would have to have a certain number of petitioner signatures before they got funding). The fund would cover the cost of televised debates, a web site for each candidate and a small amount of national tv time for national candidates. This would take power from special interest groups, level the playing field between rich and poor, workers and "welfare", etc. Please note that there is not one derogatory term used here and I would more than appreciate responses in turn. ;-)

Okay, I want to issue an apology to BoJester. I seem to have been the one to start this, but it was never what I suggested. What I said was that everyone should ignore your stupid (as in thoughtless) hateful posts. I NEVER INTENDED ANYONE TO BOYCOTT BO JESTER. As a former military man, I am 100% in favor of the freedom of speech. At the same time, we can't allow people running through crowded buildings screaming fire.
My point was that if we ignore the "stupid posts" (you have to admit, that some of your responses are simply venom dripping barbs and have nothing to do with the threads posted), it might actually raise the level of discourse in this forum to something approaching civility. Bo Jester being liberal is NOT the only problem on this board, but when a conservative (specially one calling himself a Christian) posts this kind of crap, I call them on it personally. Obviously, I don't call out every post or poster... I have a life and don't sit here all day, nor read every thread.
So to you Bo, live long and prosper, I will do my best to ignore what I consider your "stupid" posts, but plan to read anything you do offer of substance.

I prefer the term "knee-jerk", as in when the doctor hits you with the little hammer. It's very hard to stop that reflex but can be done. I do think it's funny that you only called out RWE's as you call them, I find there are just as many LWE knee-jerk responders, if not more, than RWE; but maybe that's just the view from different sides of the fence.

Edit: btw, I have no respect for either L or R knee-jerk "thinkers". Too much of the problem in America today has come from people blindy accepting what their particular party head has preached verses taking the time to research an issue and come to one's honest own opinion.

I agree 100%, just trying to better myself and am wondering if others are interested. There are those who do this routinely and I truly respect them for their maturity.

Valid identification, only being able to vote in the county where registered, a true mix of all parties overseeing the results, would be a start.

Dude, take the high road! Respond with the evidence, it doesn't take more than a couple of clicks to find. We say that the liberals, democrats, whatever respond with stupid comments instead of proof to back up what they say, and then we respond the same way. This lowers us to the same level. If someone asks for proof, give it to them, don't expect them to try and find what they really don't want to see anyway! (This is not bashing, I'm trying to get everyone to rise to a level that shows we are better than some of the bozos who have represented us lately).

Such cute posts. Gotta have something to read in the morning.

Please do! ;-)