They probabaly will enact martial law..........confiscate your chickens to supply eggs for a concentration camp they set up at the Thomson prison the feds just bought.
No question that a flat tax puts more burden on the poor. There would certainly have to be a floor that would exclude the poverty level. I agree that a progressive system is likely the most fair. Those that want to see the rich pay half of their income in taxes just because they are rich have not thought things through very clearly. Or, just dont care and are jealous.
Ok I with you on that. Still the same principles work in the personal income tax area. You give people more disposable income they are going to spend it. That will create more jobs, and a bigger sales tax and income tax base. If people are comfortable about there next pay check they will spend money that's fact. If they are looking at higher taxes and financial strapped economy they are not going to spend there money. Less sales equals less jobs equals less tax revenue. What country with a high tax rate is as functional as the US?
Lol! Central Illinois will be part of the food district. (hunger games reference for those who don't get it) Did you see that O just signed an executive order that has Homeland Security 'partnering' with all state and local governments. Yay for big brother!
Bush didn't create the FSMA which is a control issue over food producers, not about food safety. And certainly not about terrorists or 'homeland security'. Bush also didn't try to make CDLs required to drive a tractor or grain wagon. He didn't try to ban kids from feeding the chickens at the family farm or make illegal to ride in the tractor. This administration is fascinated with control. At best it's just a HUGE waste of tax payer dollars. (like sending federal agents to check on small flocks of chickens..... that are already licensed and regulated by the state) At worst, it's kinda of scary.
I kinda agree with you. Though, millionaires are comfortable about their next check, regardless of the tax burden. The only people insecure about their checks are the ones living paycheck to paycheck. Those are the people that spend their money, in reality most, if not all of it. It's the reason Obama doesn't want to raise taxes on the middle. Alas, this issue is much more complex than taxes. there are a plethora of things that go into it.
Wait a minute, you are speaking common sense here.... that just wont fly. You cant be expected to make any decisions for yourself. Your government will do that for you.
There are plenty of people worth a couple of million on paper that dont have a lot of extra money to throw around. A million or two really is not a lot of money to retire on these days. The top 1 or 2 percent may not miss it, but do they really owe it to a government that wastes billions of dollars every year and seems to have absolutely no desire to balance a budget? I think not.
Raising taxes only goes so far. We must tackle social security, Medicare, Medicaid, and self defense sections of our budgets if we ever plan to get the debt under control. The voters have spoken, the first three are NOT to be touched (unless added to)
This is why I believe nothing posted, lol http://mediamatters.org/research/2011/08/17/right-wing-media-push-bogus-cdls-for-all-farmer/182966 A two second Internet search, I won't waste anymore time looking at your other claims.
It was pulled because farmers had a cow over it. Trust me, it was on the table. Ask your local farm bureau guy. The guy who farms my field is the top guy for the IL Corn Growers... he and other top farmy dudes met with people from this administration to fight the proposed rules. It's not imaginary.
"Melissa O’Rourke, ISU Extension Farm & Agribusiness Management Specialist Farm tractors and other implements move down gravel roads, county blacktops and highways all across Iowa, traveling from field to field. This necessary movement is heightened during planting, haying and harvesting seasons. For years, the federal agency charged with monitoring and regulating commercial vehicle safety has allowed state governments to waive commercial drives license (CDL) requirements for farmers hauling crops or driving farm equipment on public roads. Earlier this year, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) was poised to eliminate this exception. Under the proposed change, FMCSA suggested that all crop shipments be considered part of interstate commerce – even, for example, when farmers were making short hauls to local grain elevators and not crossing state lines. This new designation would make CDLs a necessity for anyone operating a farm implement or hauling grain on a public road. CDLs would have been required for livestock hauled in trailers as small as 16 feet in length. Producers who operated tractors, combines and pickup trucks hauling trailers would all be required to obtain CDLs along with medical cards and maintain log books as if they were long-haul truckers.In many states, young drivers – who may be family farm members assisting in production operations – would be ineligible for CDL license, and therefore excluded from participation in the farm operation. The FMSCA initially intended to allow 30 days for public comment before implanting the new rules. Fortunately, farmers, ranchers and related industry groups contacted federal legislators with their concerns. These contacts resulted in 18 US senators requesting that FMSCA allow more time for public comment – through August 1, 2011. FMSCA received over 1700 comments from farmers and representative groups. FMSCA heard a wide range of protests from concerned individuals and groups. It appears to some that the comments received by FMSCA served to inform the agency of the realities of farm operations. On August 10, 2011, FMSCA issued regulatory guidance, essentially backing off the proposed new rules. At least for the present time, CDLs will not be required of farm operators moving tractors, combines, and trucks pulling implements and livestock trailers. The responsiveness of ag producers and representative groups yielded a positive result. Continued watchfulness on this topic is warranted."
Seriously Germ, you probably never even heard of the proposed rules but your perfectly happy to swallow and regurgitate something from media matters? Particularly over folks who actually are involved in farming and pay attention to such things?? You make the perfect lackey.
I am getting on my marching boots, to protest a regulation that was not proposed, some thought it was, and 1700 people protested and it appears they swayed this hitler like administration. Lets March, who's with me
My family owned a farm, but name calling is all got. You make a perfect Peter, keep crying wolf and let's not focus on the real issues. http://ohioaglaw.wordpress.com/2011...-rumor-of-cdl-requirement-for-farm-equipment/ http://brownfieldagnews.com/2011/08/04/cdl-requirement-for-agriculture-–-just-a-rumor/ Not sure where it started, but John Porcari, Deputy Secretary, U.S. Department of Transportation wants to be clear, anything you've heard or read about a commercial driver's license going to be required for farm equipment is not true. Let me say this as bluntly as I can to the agricultural community, there is no new regulation coming down the pike requiring commercial driver's licenses for operators of farm equipment, said Porcari. There's not any regulatory requirement coming down the road, it is a rumor that has kind of taken off on its own, I'd like to put that to rest. The Deputy Secretary told Brownfield what they have been doing is listen to the needs of the agricultural community, answer questions and make sure they are geared up for the future with whatever the future safety requirements are. Porcari was at the Ohio State Fair on Tuesday, August 2, participating in the White House Rural Roundtable with USDA Under Secretary Edward Avalos. Here, should I ignore these farmers?
Gary, read your original link. The "rumor" was started by what actually happened in Illinois. "Earlier this year, the State of Illinois began regulating certain kinds of farmers as commercial motor vehicle drivers, a move that caused a lot of consternation in the Illinois farming community, seeing as it would require stiff new driving tests, periodic drug testing and other hurdles. The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration stepped in to clarify whether the states had the right to do what Illinois had done, and on May 31, the U.S. Department of Transportation issued a public notice asking for comment on the commercial licensing of farm equipment. Many in the farm community saw that notice as evidence that federal regulations were brewing, and the rumor went viral. That speeded up the process in Washington. Last Wednesday, the agency moved to put the issue to rest. The guidance the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration put out did exactly opposite what Gov. Perry said. It told the states "the common sense exemptions that allow farmers, their employers, and their families to accomplish their day-to-day work and transport their products to market" should remain in place. "We have no intention of instituting onerous regulations on the hardworking families who feed our country and fuel our economy," Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, himself an Illinoisan and a Republican, said in the agency's statement Aug. 10". [The Wall Street Journal, Washington Wire, 8/16/11] Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2
I think even Christine will agree with that one.:D I added the actual paragraphs from your link. Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2
