Fwd: ADDENDUM BEFORE CONTINUATION WITH ICING

-----Original Message-----
From: New Owner <rrdd3939@aol.com>
To: b <rrdd3939@aol.com>
Sent: Mon, Feb 14, 2011 5:35 pm
Subject: Re: Fwd: ADDENDUM BEFORE CONTINUATION WITH ICING

UPDATE: 2/14/2011. Last week represented the inception of Beck and others talking big-time about doing away with subsidies. We: last November in this article and "She Only had Time for...We Interrupt this Article," "She Only had Time for a Short One - Part Two" and in "Action Chain Letters" (please read this material). We like to be ahead of the curve. We enjoy tooting our own horn. While we are at it: we also scooped Beck and others twice since 2009. Last week, Larry Reid, "Foundation for Economic Education," was a guest on Beck and pointed out that food that isn't subsidized doesn't experience shortages, thereby, removing one of the justifications for costly subsidies.  On Nov 11 2010, 3:32 pm, b <rrdd3...@aol.com> wrote: > -----Original Message----- > From: b <rrdd3...@aol.com> > To: rrdd3...@aol.com > Sent: Thu, Nov 11, 2010 9:58 am > Subject: ADDENDUM BEFORE CONTINUATION WITH ICING > > Editor's Suggestion: You might want to read article proper first: Title: "She  Only had Time > for a Short One" and Subtitle "Married to Cynicism, Hopelessness and the   Veiled :Lady." >                                                 by R. DePersio > Let's Amplify...The President's Bi-Partisan Commission has announced its  proposals to > deal with deficit and debt - and going contrary to popular opinion - we are  use to being > in that place! - we whole-heartedly embrace them with one exception: we need  to invest > in restoring NASA as a potent technological engine of our economy for a  virtual guarantee > of sustained economic growth. >         One of its recommendations: Cut the Corporate Income tax from 35% to  26%. Ours is > the second largest in the world; Japan has 40%. After all of this time Citizen  Reporter was > finally heard. He recommended doing this way back at the peek of the  Clinton-ACorn-Fed- > Housing-Frank-Fanni-Freddie -Caused economic/financial crisis and has been  promoting > ever a since as a major way to generate jobs, increase R & D, expand existing  factories and > create new ones. We also proposed cutting the Capital Gains Tax for the  self-same reasons. > > Wait a minute and hold your horses!: How is this an Add-on!?! Go for the  meds...Back...We > spoke of subsidies. We should phase-out subsidies as per suggestions in  article proper. We > should do so over a ten year period to enable economic adaptation. Perhaps,  there should > be a trigger mechanism of sorts to be triggered only in the case of a dire  emergency and > after careful consideration of all other options. >         We are hesitant in this regard for we question the very nature of  subsidies. Un-capitalistic > - absolutely; Unconstitutional - likely. We opposed the auto bail-out but  supported the > financial one. Employing hindsight, we believe that the president should have  issued an > executive order to the effect that no entity, foreign or domestic, could lay a  financial > claim against financial institutions for a 3-month period while those  institutions engaged > in re-structuring.  Constitutional? Far more so then the bail-outs themselves  - the loans > to the financial sector which Obama turned into virtual stocks and maintains  that > commercial banks, investment banks, combos, and insurers - those which  received > loans ans those which didn't  - whole industries - must clear decisions with  his > financial czar. The auto industry should have gone to bankruptcy court.  Instead Obama > played bankruptcy judge - BIG-TIME UNCONSTITUTIONAL - - not part of the  president's > constitutional job description. Why did he do it? A bankruptcy judge would  have spread > the pain. Obama wanted to give the shaft to corporate execs and stock- and  bond- holder's > and spare union bosses and workers too much discomfort. Certainly a matter for  the new > House to take up as possible grounds for imp......investigation. And,  returning to the > target, our reticence for a trigger-mechanism as regards subsidies and one a  liberal > president made invoke prematurely and not allow free-market forces to operate  for they > disdain capitalism as much as they disdain OUR Constitution! > > The states want and should have the land that the fed gov stole from it  returned. The > Constitution gave 16 responsibilities to the fed gov and management of state  land > wasn't one of them! This will enable us over a ten year period - adjustment  phase - to > substantially shrink the Department of the Interior and the EPA (we think that > semi-independent federal agencies are unconstitutional anyway, therefore, it  would > constitute a two-for!). It would afford states time to decide how it wants to  allocate ITS > LAND with respect to energy independence vs, environmental protection (it  would     determine proper balance with state profit as an important factor) and  which fed laws and  regs, including, environmental ones, it wishes to retain or  modify or forgo. (Another > two-for: we would reduce deficit/debt and diminish size and power of fed  gov!). > > Well, there you have it until next time when we will show up with more  proposals on > saving taxpayer money...Not so fast. Perhaps, our evaluation was premature:  Article > proper was your first non-A.D.D.-ed article and we applauded you for it. Were  we hasty? > Proper - fair; Addendum better. Perhaps, we should allow Citizen Reporter be  who he is > and without too much help from his little 'friends!'- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "New Federalism" group.
To post to this group, send email to newfederalism@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to newfederalism+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/newfederalism?hl=en.