DUMP DAVI$ & the Den of Socialists
By the way, anyone wanna buy some half-baked politicians?
GO SIMON
Posted on 06/15/2002 4:18:28 AM PDT by snopercod
Edited on 04/14/2004 10:05:12 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
From bullets to Bordeaux, plans aim to get voters to tax others' proclivities.
SACRAMENTO - That glass of merlot would cost you an extra nickel. Plinking with a .22 would be about 50 cents more per magazine than it is today. Smokers? You might want to budget another 65 cents per pack.
(Excerpt) Read more at ocregister.com ...
Let he who is without sin cast the first vote.
That means the death of low end tubes for concumers, and the adoption of flat panel screens. Who wants to pay $30 tax on a product that costs $99?
Also, what is the State's role in disposal? Do they collect money and pass it onto the city landfill? Do they pay to transport the old CRTs to Mexico or China?
If the State's role is "education", then this is little more than than a boondoggle for the media. Remember all of the money the Feds spent during x42's years on "public education" (drugs, pollution, etc)? Nothing but a payoff to the media as they made media buys at full rates, and a payoff to local pols who received some free advertising.
If the State just collects the money, disposal programs will never see meaningful assistance as the money is siphoned off into pet projects.
--Boris
Remember when Not-So-Great Britain slapped a "beer tax" on the public? People are still taking vans and motor homes across the channel and buying beer on the dock, then bringing back back hundreds of cases at a time "for personal consumption".
...making and selling beer in Britain is held in a vice by the fact that brewers have to pay seven or eight times as much duty on beer than their opposite numbers in France. In France 5p of the cost of a pint goes in duty, in this country its 31 per cent.As a result, thousands go on "booze cruises" every day to Calais to stock up with cheap French and Belgian lager. Twelve cans of Stella Artois that will set you back £14 in Britain cost just £4 in a Calais hypermarket.
There's a more sinister side to cheap, imported beer. The infamous white transit vans that go to and fro on the Shuttle between Folkestone and Calais every day are selling on cheap beer to car boot sales and dubious drinking clubs. A lot of the trade is now in the hands of criminals who use the profits from cheap imported beer to fund far more dangerous drugs than alcohol.
The equivalent of the entire annual production of two large English regional breweries comes into the country every year through the Channel ports. That amounts to all the beer brewed by Greene King and Wolverhampton & Dudley combined. Is it any wonder that regional brewers in Britain are suffering, are severely under capacity, and several have pulled down the shutters in recent years?
That's really an interesting quote there on many levels, since.
ROFL! ...or how about a $5 per condom tax to support AIDS research?
What's supposed to be the "hazard" in disposing of them, anyway?
They would have a windfall there if they could find a way. Socialism has failed everywhere and everytime it has been tried, but suckers keep falling for it.
I guess it's another example of nature weeding out the stupid states...
...and life itself, if you get right down to it. Just about every one of their initiatives results in people dying. The DDT ban is a perfect example. CAFE standards are another.
Citizens and society don't need them. The only people that need 3,000 laws and regulations each year are the politicians and bureaucrats that create them. Created to justify their unearned paychecks. Yet still, each new law or regulation that doesn't protect individual rights or property rights is a drain on citizens and society.
Thinking about it that way, prosperity would dramatically increase if no new unnecessary laws were created and instead more laws were repealed than new laws created.
The numbers are somewhat changed for California's government as well as other state governments. Each state probably creating, by comparison, a mere five hundred new and mostly unnecessary laws and regulations each year.
Parasitical Elite vs. Prosperity Creators
If civilization had to chose between business/science and government/bureaucracy, eliminating the other, which is the better choice?
The first thing civilization must have is business/science. It's what the family needs so that its members can live creative, productive, happy lives. Business/science can survive, even thrive without government/bureaucracy.
Government/bureaucracy cannot survive without business/science. In general, business/science and family is the host and government/bureaucracy is a parasite.
Aside from that, keep valid government services that protect individual rights and property. Military defense, FBI, CIA, police and courts. With the rest of government striped away those few valid services would be several fold more efficient and effective than they are today.
Underwriters Laboratory is a private sector business that has to compete in a capitalist market. Underwriters laboratory is a good example of success where government fails.
Any government agency that is a value to the people and society could better serve the people by being in the private sector where competition demands maximum performance.
Wake up! They are the parasites. We are the host. We don't need them. They need us.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.