Replies

Jim, I want to get rid of the IRS, their GOON SQUAD, and have a smaller government, as much as you do and for a longer amount of time. The insurmountable problem, here, is that a consumption tax won't do all that much to bring about what we ALL want. It WOULD bring about consiquences, as I have already explained, that would be extremely detrimental.

President Bush wants to make his death tax eviseration perminant. I want him to do that too ! Ditto the rest of that agenda. But ... think what a consumption tax would REALLY do . It might get rid of THIS form of the IRS ; however, some other such entity would , of necessity , have to replace it.

You want to defund the governemnt; so do I, to some extent. If it was completely defunded, how could it support the military ? Tarrifs , alone, on top of a consumption tax isn't going to " cut it ".

LONG LIVE OUR REPUBLIC !

Taxes, duties and excises (as the Founders intended).

I believe there are only a little over a dozen powers and functions delegated to the federal government in the Constitution. Defending our borders is job number one. After that, they run the federal court system, the post office, the patent office, coin the money, etc. All other functions currently handled by the federal government that are not specifically authorized should be turned back to the states and the people.

What sales tax rate would be required if we only had to fund the military and a dozen or so authorized depts? Probably less than 10%. Let's see, my guess is the federal budget would probably be about a third of what it is now.

Here are some clips from an article posted tonight:

"In 1794, Congress appropriated $15,000 for relief of French refugees. James Madison stood on the floor of the House to object, saying, "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." James Madison, you'll recall, is the acknowledged father of the Constitution, and he couldn't find constitutional authority for spending "on the objects of benevolence."

Your congressman might say, "Madison was all wrong; after all, there's the 'general welfare' clause." Here's what Madison had to say about that: "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." Thomas Jefferson echoed similar sentiments saying, "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."

When the great generation was born, Congress spent only three percent of the GDP. Today, as the great generation dies off, Congress spends over a quarter of the GDP. There is no constitutional authority for at least three-quarters of that spending."

Wow! Only three percent of GDP! If they could do, we can do it!

http://www.FreeRepublic.com/focus/news/787923/posts