NorthSideSox72

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Dec 3, 2006 -> 04:05 PM) Finally, an anti-abortion bill that affects men. I'd suggest that all abortion-related bills affect men - many of them just fail to see that.

Its time to enter the fray on this, what may be, the most fractious issue on the board. Some have avoided it entirely. I have a lot of respect for those candidates who have put their positions out here for consideration. Its been suggested by military officials that we have three current strategic options: “Go big, go long, or go home.” But really, those are not strategies at all – they are methodologies. And here the administration shows again a lack of planning and preparation. I will lay out here the actual strategy my administration would promote in order to get to the best possible end in this conflict. I’ve boiled it down to these 4 initiatives… 1. First, I agree heartily with Rex and PA here, in saying that dialogue with regional stakeholders has to be one of the key pieces. Determine what each wants to see in Iraq, and come up with ways to fit our ends (and means) with those countries’ desires. 2. Energy independence. In the long view, nothing is more important. We can neither achieve our goals in the Middle East nor elect to leave the region, if we continue to be over the barrel. We must enter any and all negotiations from a position of strength, not weakness. See my 7 point plan for energy independence for details. 3. Kurdistan must be allowed independence. Despite its internal problems (the two main parties’ conflicts), and the fact that they make Turkey very, very nervous… They are the best shot we have at an independent, democratic state in the region. Turkey’s issues can be combated directly by our military and economic involvement – we already have a strong relationship with that country, and we can leverage that and enhance it by assisting them in that area. Plus, when Kurdistan becomes independent, those Kurds who are causing problems inside Turkey will have a home to go to. Another advantage to having a presence concentrated in Kurdistan is that it puts us right next to Iran, who we need to keep a close eye on. 4. Finally, the rest of Iraq. I’ll say this first – I have changed my view on this topic. I’ve changed it because I feel the situation has changed. I no longer feel that more troops, or further/changed commitment, would result in anything positive. Therefore, I am now in favor of focusing on training the Iraqi forces as far as possible within a few months, and then begin a phased pullout. It saddens me to make that statement, but I simply no longer see a winning option. The pullout should include concentrating troops in Kurdistan as noted earlier, as well as in Iraq for regional stabilization, but ultimately result in a drastic reduction of force in Iraq. I believe this is the best path left available to us.

QUOTE(sox4lifeinPA @ Dec 3, 2006 -> 02:42 PM) Out of principle, Jim, I will respond in my thread. So what, my thread's not good enough for you? Am I a clown to you? QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Dec 3, 2006 -> 01:50 PM) I think it is time as a society to reexamine why we have the second amendment and why it's important to us. I believe that an American should have the right to own weaponry, if he/she chooses. I believe that an American should be able to own guns. However, I think it can be consistent with the second amendment to limit and regulate the sale of weaponry. The Second Amendment isn't impeded by the idea of prohibiting the sale of weaponry to convicted felons, and it isn't impeded by limiting the types of ammunition that are available for sale in this country as well. It certainly isn't impeded by the idea of keeping a national gun registry. We use data, acceptably or not, that is much more benign to be on the watch for terrorists - including our financial transactions as well as library records. Why shouldn't we be able to keep track of who is owning which gun? We can put safeguards on the registry to allow its use in specific law-enforcement procedures only, for example. I do support a national gun registry - with proper safeguards. If done properly, it can help ensure our safety without jeopardizing our liberty. I definitely agree that we need a modern perspective. And I agree on selling to convited felons, and in some extreme circumstances, certain types of ammunition. But the registry stands in direct opposition of the purpose of the amendment. I just can't justify it, despite some of the positives it might bring.

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Dec 3, 2006 -> 12:28 PM) I don't know if the other candidates are still browsing this thread, but if so I would love to see Rex, Tex, and PA chime in on this question. With only four official debate topics there are lots of other platform planks that are not really being addressed. NorthSide has really impressed me throughout the debates and the whole campaign cycle. On taxes and environmental issues particularly, I'd say he'd be looking like my guy. He's likely to lose me over the gun control issues, but 'd like to give the other candidates a chance to shoot themselves in the foot on the issue as well before I make that decision. I'm not so rabidly anti-gun that I want them all legislated out of owners' hands. And although it's not my cup of tea, I respect the right of people to enjoy responsible and regulated hunting. From an animal population control perspective many hunting activities integrate well with conservation and wildlife management needs, so that isn't the issue. The issue is one of pursuing sensible gun control that does not conflict with a reasonable interpretation of the Second Amendment. I don't believe that gun registration infringes on the rights of The People to a well regulated Militia any more than any federal registration requirements infringe on our right to privacy. Perhaps we need to examine how such records can be used and under what circumstances they can be accessed (such as after a weapon is used in the commission of a crime that can't be deemed part of a private citizen's activity to ensure the security of a free State). The Constitutional framers themselves knew their job wasn't finished once the Bill of Rights was penned. Just 10 years after the Second Amendment was drafted, President Jefferson in his first annual message to the nation said: "We should at every session continue to amend the defects . . . in the laws regulating the militia." Five years later in an annual address he again noted the matter of rogue private militias: "The criminal attempts of private individuals to decide for their country the question of peace or war, by commencing active and unauthorized hostilities should be promptly and efficaciously suppressed." I am of the opinion (open to debate) that the well regulated state militias of Articles I and II of the Constitution and the Second Amendment, under the command of the governor of each state (per Jefferson's 1811 clarification) are clear reference to what we now call the National Guard, not the backwoods private armies that pass themselves off as bastions of security for the free State. I do not deny even these entities the right to keep and bear arms as American citizens according to the laws of the land, but I also do not believe that gun registration and restricting certain firearms abrogates those rights either. So,what do the other candidates have to say about this? The all-important FlaSoxx vote hangs in the balance! Thanks for all of that, sir, I appreciate the comments. The "militia" discussion is interesting, and the term can be interpereted in mulitple ways. But ultimately, what it did not mean in that context, was to somehow protect the right to arms for a standing military. The National Guard, in its current use, is basically a standing military. It is no longer a collection of citizens protecting regional and local interests. It is part of the national military for all reasonable purposes. Therefore, I do not believe the protection should be limited to them. Further, interestingly, there has been only one Supreme Court case that ever looked at the 2nd Amendment materially. In fact, the highest court in the land has been seemingly avoiding the topic. That one case was U.S. v Miller, 1939. In that case, while the court did in fact find connection with state militias, it should also be noted again that the National Guard is a far cry from what "state militias" have previously been. And, interestingly, among the dissent opinions in that case, it was pointed out that the amendment as stated probably protects most vigorously those weapons that are the most powerful - as opposed to the opposite. Now, I am not of the opinions that people should own bazookas and M60's. However, I think when you get to the point of arguing 10 bullets in a pistol magazine versus 15, then you need to ask if maybe you are missing the point of the amendment. And further, ask yourself if that really accomplishes anything. QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Dec 3, 2006 -> 12:28 PM) So,what do the other candidates have to say about this? The all-important FlaSoxx vote hangs in the balance! Also, by the way, just so people don't misinterperet me... feel free to use my Q&A thread for others' opinions. SoxFan1 and FlaxxJim both asked for other opinions, so have at it. Mi casa, su casa.

QUOTE(shoota @ Dec 3, 2006 -> 11:39 AM) Yeah, I agree we can't criticize KW until he sets the 2007 roster, it's just that his recent actions have given me an unsettling feeling I haven't had before with KW. Here's why I feel that way: his dumbfounded reaction to this offseason's FA prices and cry-poor mentality of complaining to the public how he can't compete in that field; his failure to "seal the deal" on at least two trades he was in discussion with (Rangers and Angels). If KW's budget doesn't allow him to play the big-time FA game, fine; he needs to accept his tougher situation and make the best of it. Cry-poor mentality? I've taken his statements as just the opposite - he's said, FA's are too pricey, we're moving on and looking elsewhere. When did he say he can't compete? When did he say is pushing away from the table?

QUOTE(mmmmmbeeer @ Dec 3, 2006 -> 09:56 AM) I could probably show some initiative and google that for you, but it's a lazy Sunday morning. I just remember reading something about this. I wouldn't think that they'd pack much of a wallop, just due to the size of the weapon, but a nuke is still a nuke. EDIT: It only took a second, so... http://www.military.com/NewContent/0,13190..._072204,00.html To understand the way Russian government works... don't put it outside the realm of possibility that some segment of the government (KGB/GRU, rogue military division, former Soviet Bloc country) stole those things from, and for, themselves.

QUOTE(Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 2, 2006 -> 07:13 PM) How is that arrogant? I'm not saying being an academic is a bad thing. I'm saying that if you require certain benefits and you choose a career that doesn't offer those benefits then you've made a poor choice for yourself. What's wrong with that? Is it a poor choice, or a noble one? I'd say there is a pretty substantial list of life-enhancing things you benefit from everyday that were created or bettered by low-paid scientists. I am not saying universal government health care is a good idea... but I think your characterization of this choice as a bad one is very short-sighted.

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Dec 1, 2006 -> 11:05 PM) Well, no, I suppose I'm just irked by the fact that you've made cracks about my age in the past and I've told you how much it bothers me and others have, too, and it's such a pain in the ass. Frankly, I think I'm just as bright as any old guy on this board was when they were my age. Just posted about it on the Catch-All thread but I've got two old guys who are lying about me and smearing me and insulting me all around and have stripped me of the one thing I enjoy and benefit from in CPS and I'm just tired from it. With authority and insults and am a little on edge. Which isn't to say that I wouldn't have reacted with umbrage at your comments a month ago, as I certainly would've because I'm sick of people insulting me because I'm young. It's just that, I'm particularly...vulnerable, if that's the word. Beat down, and then it bugs the s*** out of me to have a person who moderates at a forum I enjoy -- the only forum I habit -- insult me and to feel like I can't say a damn thing in response because if I'm not extra-careful someone'll suspend me. Given the climate of the thread, I felt a little joke was OK. Obviously it wasn't. Sorry again. Any further on this though, please, take it to PM. Or if you feel my joke was that bad, report it to another Mod. I don't want this or any other thread so thoroughly derailed. Moving on...

Just curious... which is the exception? Do we know? Is it the selfish user, or the unfortunate circumstances? Anyone have any numbers or evidence?

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Dec 1, 2006 -> 10:57 PM) Well the thing that bothers me is that there are rules against snark and stuff like that and I know that if I made a mild comment to NorthSide I'd have a couple of PMs from Staffers at the site yelling at me and he'd tell me that it's wrong to "call someone else out" and besides that, it isn't as if he's being rude to PA for doing the same thing I did. Guess it's just my problem with authority and abuses of it -- not that I'm accusing anyone here of abusing their authority but all the same I suspect that I'd be in some sort of trouble with The Law at SoxTalk if I were to, I don't know, make a similar crack to him. You just did. But that aside, I apoligized, and the comment was what it was: a wee bit snarky. You could ask me if I was too old to know what high school is like nowadays, and I'd have to say I am. Can we move on now? Or do we need a "staffer" to come clean this up?

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Dec 1, 2006 -> 10:50 PM) I like it when moderators take potshots. So classy. And then, if you reply, they sit on their thrones and shoot at you. Is it called for to insult me because of my age? No. It's not, but whatever, man, you can call me out all you want. It's not like I have any authority to do anything about it. Not like I did anything to provoke such a rude response. All I did was answer a question asked you with MY thoughts on the matter. PA does it all the time, too in these political threads -- reply to questions posed to others. I imagine that you don't give him such a snarky response. Hell, SF1 is a Senior in HS, too, and I'm sure there're plenty of other posters. I hope this causes you the youthful demographic. Well, you're right. I shouldn't have made the snide comment. I was a little off-put by you answering a question directed towards me. But indeed, I should not have allowed my response to be dictated by said frustration. I apologize. I'm probably too old and crusty to get that youthful demographic anyway. QUOTE(SoxFan1 @ Dec 1, 2006 -> 10:53 PM) It's not that big of a deal. Candidates are supposed to take shots at eachother. That is certainly the way things work nowadays. But GP is right, I shouldn't have brought his youth into the discussion.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Dec 1, 2006 -> 10:41 PM) Similarly, registration of guns has one important potential benefit...being able to trace a gun used in a crime to a source. Especially if some sort of true ballistic fingerprinting technology is developed in the near future, which it may very well be, this could be an invaluable tool to law enforcement, such that a crime using a gun could be rapidly traced back to the owner/purchaser of the gun, or at least to a narrow group of owners of a specific type of gun, thus keeping the trail warm. When I purchased my car and licensed it, the government learned rapidly that I had purchased a blue Honda Civic. If a Blue 06 Honda Civic runs over a person tomorrow, and no one identifies a license plate, I would expect that my name would come up within the group of potential suspects. Given the purely lethal of guns and the likelihood that the information can be protected except in the event of a criminal investigation (i.e. there is a warrant), that is one type of information I am happily willing to pass to the government and law enforcement agencies, whether we are talking about a gun or an automobile. If someone shoots a person with either a gun I own or a gun similar to the one I own (if I were to purchase a gun), then I would feel the police would be fully justified in asking about the whereabouts of that gun and whether or not it had been fired recently. Let me say this. As a former law enforcement officer, I would love to be able to support registration for the very reasons you mention. It would make cops' lives that much easier, and probably even get more criminals off the street. The only problem is, registering specific weapons is almost exactly what the framer's sought to prevent (short of an outright ban). The main purpose of the 2nd amendment isn't about hunting or self-defense, but about keeping power out of the hands of government. This may seem an archaic concept in the modern world, but I think Mao's quote still works even today. Its an important check to protect our freedoms. I just can't abide it, despite the obiovus advantages you rightly cite.

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Nov 30, 2006 -> 09:43 PM) I believe in taxation that is progressive rather than regressive. Every American should be able to assume a specific amount of income will be guaranteed tax free from the government each year. I propose that the first 25,000 dollars earned per year be made tax free. Beyond that, I feel that the highest marginal tax rate should be capped at 35%. Further, I feel that the US should explore methods of taxation that are consumption based - especially when it comes to helping to acheive a goal of energy independence. As such, I propose extending tax credits to those purchasing hybrid and ULEV vehicles. I also propose creating a federal sales tax for new cars based on energy efficiency. The lower the efficiency, the higher the rate of sales tax. Further, I feel that those who utilize our public transportation networks should be rewarded as well by being able to write off the cost of a monthly or yearly bus/train pass on Amtrak, commuter rail/bus or city transportation systems. Rex, I've decided to send my one question in this thread to you... First, I must say, I agree with your thought on consumption-based taxes. More use fees in general as part of revenue, putting the burden on users of resources, is a positive thing. But I would like some clarification. You mention a new federal sales tax on cars, based on efficiency, which has merit. But its a new tax. Are you comfortable increasing the tax burden overall by adding this tax, and further by extending the larger credits for hybrids? Is the sales tax to cover the credits? I am just trying to determine if you are talking about a tax increase (in the overall sense), or a tax rebalancing in favor of those buying "green". And as that pertains to your overall tax policy, do you feel that (barring national emergency) the current overall tax burden on the people as a whole is adequate, or do you see need to increase or decrease it?

Well, nice to see that GP answered for me. GP, are you even old enough to own a gun yet? SoxFan1 - I'll lay it out for you. Here are my views on these subjects: --Restrictions on types of guns, magazine sizes, pistols specifically, etc. are worthless. They've been proven again and again to do zero to reduce crime (who expects criminals to follow such restrictions?), and they violate the spirit of the 2nd Amendment. Its akin to telling someone they can buy a Ford Taurus, but not a Mustang. They are both deadly weapons. --The way certain licenses, like acquisition of concealed carry permits, are acquired, is piecemeal and non-sensical. Various counties and their sheriffs get to choose how strict or loose they are, so you have no uniformity. It should be really easy - if you aren't a violent felon, aren't on any sort of probation or restriction, and you pass a safety course... you should get the same access to the same guns as anyone else. --Registration of weapons is a mistake - it takes away the originally intended teeth of the 2nd amendment. --I DO agree with brief waiting periods, and background checks should be done always. Those restrictions are common sense, and don't violate the base principles of the freedom. On hunting... --I am no expert on hunting laws. Let's just lay that out there. --I have shot many different types of weapons, in both a professional and personal capacity - but I have never shot at anyone or anything that was alive. And, as a matter of personal choice, I hope it stays that way. --That said, I happen to own some open/wooded land in Wisconsin, and I more than happily allow hunters to use it in the fall for deer. I just ask that they clean up their trash, watch their backgrounds, and follow existing laws. --I think that hunting laws should match the needs of people, and also healthy populations of animals. Unless a species is endangered, then hunting it should generally be allowed. Bag limits should be dictated by the population levels and ecological health. I hope that make sense for you. You won't hear me fill your ears with a load of crap. You may not agree with all the above, but I think you'll find my stances to be pretty close to what you'd consider logical.

QUOTE(aboz56 @ Dec 1, 2006 -> 04:28 PM) If he's so great, why is he still a backup? He's 30, made his big league debut in 2000 and has never had over 250 plate appearances in a season. In 2001 and 2003, he never even played a game in the big leagues. There's a reason folks. I mean judging by the way people talk about him, if other GM's feel the same, we should be able to just flip him for some stud talent. He's a first baseman by trade and most teams would not want him as their everyday first baseman. He's not that good and neither is Podsednik. We need to upgrade at the position and that doesn't involve giving the position to Gload who might be one of the guys in the league who actually has a weaker arm than Pods from LF. Those reasons' names are Todd Helton, Mark Grace, Frank Thomas, Paul Konerko and Jim Thome. Also covered in the Gload thread.

QUOTE(Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 1, 2006 -> 03:39 PM) You're right. My family members all invested in themselves, went to school, and have decent jobs that give them the choice of obtaining health insurance. They're not sitting around waiting for handouts. And before you ask, no, my parents weren't all that wealthy. They assisted three children in going to college as much as they could, but both of my siblings, and myself took out massive amounts of federal aid. I'm taking an extra 80k out to go to law school. I have zero sympathy for people who don't work for what is available. Me working my ass off and taking the risk of recieving these loans equates to me being able to go to a doctor I choose and get treated when I want to, instead of waiting next to the bum on the street who hasn't done a damned thing to deserve it. Goverment assistance to those that contribute? Sure. I'll sign up for that. Universal healthcare for everyone? Not a chance. I happen to know someone who had just finished grad school, and was doing part-time contract work while looking for full time work. Then she got pregnant. And had no health insurance. While I agree that some people wait around for hand-outs, I hope you realize that is not universally the case. Some people get stuck in a very bad place, due to no fault of their own. The question is, what do you do with them? If you simply abandon them, they'll end up costing all of us money later anyway in some way. Preventative health care may be the cheaper option.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Dec 1, 2006 -> 01:20 PM) I expect nothing more from the "sky is falling" crowd who finds reasons to throw temper tantrums about anything and everything that happens around this team. Especially when, ultimately, this "happening" has zero bearing on whether or not he's with the team next year. It says one thing only - that KW isn't stupid. You can't trade what you don't have. If you trade for an LF, then they may want one back, if only temporarily. And like Rotoworld said, at $2.9M, someone will want him. Its December 1st for crying out loud.

Some of you guys are amazing. Has it occurred to you that, even if we were to trade they guy, we'd STILL have had to sign him first?! And if we waited for arbitration, it would mean waiting on using the chip. In other words, this means absolutely zero about whether or not Pods is in LF come Opening Day. The chances of that happening have not changed. Its still maybe.

Happy B-Day Greasy. Where the heck does that name come from anyway?

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Dec 1, 2006 -> 09:36 AM) "working from home" for me Ditto. But, being a consultant, I suspect you always work from home on Fridays anyway.

For all of you out there who are supporting our long term thinking, responsible government approach... here is our lawn sign... You can proudly add this to your Sig, and show everyone what we stand for. Thank you for your support!

QUOTE(Tony82087 @ Nov 30, 2006 -> 04:20 PM) Have a hunch this is going to "just miss us" only getting a few inches at the most. Great. Now we're doomed.

QUOTE(sox4lifeinPA @ Nov 28, 2006 -> 11:06 PM) Thank you, Mr FlasoxxJim, for your question. My environmental initiatives are actually economic ones as much as anything. No one can discredit the automobile as one of the greatest innovations of the 20th Century. However, the American Auto industry has seemed to have a difficult time adjusting to the 21st Century. Executives from Ford and other leading companies recently visited President Bush asking for government assistance to help relieve some of their financial woes. I believe this would be a vast mistake. It is not that I do not believe in government assistance in corporations, for instance, after September 11th, it was in the nation’s best interest for the U.S. government to prop up failing airlines due to the terrorist attacks. However, it is that the American Auto industry has failed to market to a growing demand for environmentally and economically smart vehicles. Here is what I do suggest: Expand the tax credits for individual who purchase environmentally friendly vehicles. In 2006, you could purchase a Ford Escape Hybrid and receive a $2600 tax credit. What I would suggest is at least doubling this number. This would create is a huge incentive for American car buyers to think green, save money at the pump and at the same time assist car companies in increasing their sales. Simultaneously, the Federal government could satisfy the Auto industry by spurring car buying, give back money to the American consumer, and stimulate the economy. Environmental policy affects us all; keeping this fact on the nation’s conscience and matching it with environmentally friendly, economically responsible policies will ensure a better tomorrow for ourselves and our children. I believe this is a small but significant step towards encouraging corporations and consumers to achieve that goal. Thank you for taking the time to consider my initiatives on the environmental problems in America. PA Mr. PA- I'd like to ask my one question in this thread, of you. Your statement here on environmental policy shows a vision I appreciate, in regards to energy policy. You gave a specific idea as well. I like that. But, you failed to say anything about environmental policy outside the realm of energy. My question to you is this: what are your feelings on the issues of the importance of open space and wilderness, biodiversity and the ESA, and pollution and the EPA? if you could elaborate on your stance on those three subtopics, I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Nov 30, 2006 -> 11:09 AM) Northside, in your tax policy post, you suggest switching to a national sales tax instead of using the income tax that we see today. I have several issues to bring up with this concept. First and foremost is the size of the tax. Many different groups have done estimates of what sort of rate the country would wind up paying using some sort of sales tax proposal. The general numbers wind up being rates that would be calculated somewhere in the 30-40% range. This poses 2 potential problems, first, and its' something you do allude to, you're basically inflating the price of most goods by something like 40% (the more progressive you try to make the system, the higher the rate has to be). Do you believe this rate would be acceptable, or would it risk doing damage to the economy beyond what you're discussing? You also say that some of the costs will be made up by reductions in the size of the IRS and Welfare, but first of all, even if welfare costs are cut, they will be made up for in lower tax amounts taken in because people still will be in poverty (perhaps moreso), and second, the cost of the IRS is virtually negligible when compared with the size of the government itself. Secondly, with a true national sales tax, there is a high possibility of fraud, given that the goods sold are only taxed at one step, and there is a 40% cost benefit associated with skipping out on taxes through illegal activity. How would your plan deal with this potential problem? Third, the 2005 President's advisory panel on tax reform looked into various sales tax options, and found that in virtually all cases, adding in a national sales tax had the net effect of reducing the tax burden for the very highest income earners, while increasing the burden on the middle class and the upper wage-earning classes. This happens because the super-rich simply do not buy enough to make up for the huge amounts they earn. Do you consider it a problem that a sales tax would give a gigantic tax cut to people with multi-million dollar incomes and a huge tax increase to people earning between about $50k-$1 million a year? If not, why do you feel the middle class should pay more taxes, and if so, can you offer a solution? Balta- You make some excellent points. But as I will illustrate, I still believe the sales tax model to be superior to personal income tax... First, just to clarify, I am not talking about a complete replacement. I am discussing income tax only. Taxes on capital gains and interest income, for example, would not be effected by that proposal (though I believe they too can be better handled). Same goes for various other taxes on businesses, for example. So the tax burden increase towards sales tax would not be as large as you illustrate. I also want to address the claim that the tax is regressive. I simply do not agree. You point out that for lower income people, more of their money is "spent". This is obviously true. But let's break that down. As of right now, lower income families pay tax on their entire income (though at reduced effective rates). By switching to sales tax, the tax is shifted to only certain items. They do not pay taxes on rent/mortgage, utilities, and some other essential costs. And as I noted, you can further mitigate this effect by charging a lower rate against "essentials". And then the behavioral effect - lower income people being guided towards smarter spending - will also have a long term positive effect. Now, let's look at the rich folks you talked about. They may spend a lower precentage of their income, but they still invest - and now, might invest more. This results in not only stronger businesses, but also more tax income from capital gains and interest income. Meanwhile, luxury and non-essential items are more expensive, but can be more easily absorbed by the more fortunate. As for fraud, that is an important point. Enforcement mechanisms must be in place, as they are now, but probably more so. But if you have removed income tax from the equation, the relief in overhead would more than make up for that. In stating that the relative size of the IRS is small, I think you have missed some important parts of the mathematical puzzle. Certainly, the $10B per year the IRS costs is not enormous when compared to, say the military. And we wouldn't be getting rid of the whole thing either. But that is still a large chunk of money. And even more important, what is saved is the cost of doing taxes for the individual, for companies handling deductions, and all the material and overhead costs associated with doing this taxes. I do not know that number, but it is large. We must look at the whole picture. Sales tax has disadvantages. No question. But I believe the sales tax model is far superior for both rich and poor to income taxes.

It snowed once while I was living in Memphis. 2 inches (happens about once every 5 to 10 years there). The city and county literally didn't own any snow plows. The whole place came to a halt for 1.5 days. The night before the storm, the grocery stores ran out of bread and milk (why bread and milk?). The only thing operating in Memphis that day was FedEx, who do in fact own snow plows - the FedEx super-hub cannot be stopped for any reason. I went out an drove somewhere that day, just for the laughs. And I agree with Rock - Chicago is the best city in this country from April through September. The other six months, it falls way down the list.