No. Business owners must pay income tax on all of the money they make. About 6% of the price of every item sold is used to pay the owners income taxes. With no income tax, prices would drop (for taxes would not pass on to the consumer). Besides, all will be able to keep their own income instead of paying it to the government in taxes. The greater incomes that result will stimulate our economy resulting in more people making more money.
2. Wouldn't it be just as bureaucratic and hard to implement as the IRS?
No. Almost every state has a consumption tax with systems in place for collection. By using these systems that are in place, no extra programs are needed. The money collected would be then passed on to a national level. Businesses will also be allowed to keep a small percentage to cover the costs of collecting the sales tax.
3. Will it overtax those in poverty?
No. Sales tax will not be collected on necessities such as food. The poor will pay essentially no tax while those who purchase luxuries will pay tax on them. The consumption tax takes the taxing power away from the government and gives it to you.
4. Will it raise enough money?
Yes. Many studies have indicated between a 10 - 20% sales tax is enough.
Besides, government is not in debt because it doesn't tax enough.
Its in debt because it spends too much. (money it doesn't even have!)
Return to the Issues and Quotes page
1. All Clinton is accused of is allegations. Nothing has been proven.
Why should we prosecute him?
A relationship itself has been proven - Clinton admitted it.
As for the other issues, why should we trust Clinton when he says he did
not lie? He also claimed there was no affair at one time. The
purpose of hearings is not to condemn the president, nor is it to automatically
expel him from office. This is up to the court systems of the United
States. The purpose of hearings is to merely bring the president
to trial. If he is truly innocent then he can prove that before the
American people in an impeachment trial. If he is guilty he will
suffer the consequences of his actions by expulsion from office.
There is evidence to reasonably suggest illegal and immoral activities
have taken place. It is our duty to investigate these actions.
Only the truth about these actions can prove illegal activities.
It is our duty to pursue this truth under constitutional law. If
Clinton has nothing to hide than he can come forward to prove his innocence
at any time. What would have happened if we never pursued the Watergate
scandal? Before Nixon resigned the arguments were only allegations.
Yet it was what were once allegations that proved true.
2. The Presidents private life should not be considered in his character as long as he is a good leader. Why should we look at crimes and immoral activity if he is doing a "good job"?
Remember: Justice is blind. We must expect a high character of President Clinton, and any president for that matter, because he is the moral authority of our nation and the most powerful person in the world. The president carries more responsibility than any congressman, government official, court justice, or foreign head of state. How can we trust a man with more responsibility than any other in the world when he cannot demonstrate responsibility to the law, his family, and to the moral values of his country. When a person takes the office of president they become a public figure. Actions of the president, both public and private, effect the ideas and character of the nation. Clinton admitted an affair and has no credibility left. I don't think he is in much of a position to call for dismissal of charges. Besides, the simple answer to prevent the media and public from discovering immoral and illegal actions in the White House is to not commit the crimes in the first place. This is and always has been an option to Clinton. It is just up to him to use it.
3. Countries such as France do not hold their leaders to high moral standards. Why should we?
Nor did Rome. Corruption of officials in Rome played parts in bringing down the Roman Empire. As it has done to many monarchs, as it did to many of religious groups, as it has done to countless empires, countries, governments, and leaders of the past. Moral and legal corruption plague the countries who adopt it as standard. Look at nations such as France. Where are they on the world scale compared to us? Whenever we hear about France it is normally about the labor strikes, debts, and social problems in their government. Yet they criticize us for holding leaders to moral and lawful positions. Is the standard we hold our leaders to really that unpopular, that extreme, and that harsh to be asking? Hardly! Maybe it is these other nations of the world who could learn by holding leaders to the very laws with which they govern themselves.
4. Immoral actions are not criminal. Why should Bill Clinton be questioned
for acting immorally?
The question with the sex issue is not the affair, it is the perjury
and cover-up. Both are reasonable scenarios that are being investigated.
Anyway, Congress and the Supreme Court have clarified what applies to impeachment
(in the constitution it is listed as "high crimes and misdemeanors" more
info.). They have defined impeachment offenses generally as:
criminal actions, serious abuses of power, and grave misconduct in office.
The presidency too comes with an image. This image, if good, reflects the
people who chose this leader. This too applies if the image is bad.
5. This is a vast right-wing conspiracy to get President Clinton. Why should we support this?
No matter how you view it, again justice is blind. A fact is a fact no matter who it pertains to. This is not an effort to get revenge on a political opponent. This is an effort to save the future of the American justice system, trust in government, and the office of the presidency itself. Simple facts show that both Republicans and Democrats are taking a stand against the actions of President Clinton. For example, many Clinton friends and former staffers have criticized him. To see a list of these click here. As for conspiracy, Clinton essentially stated in his address that all who had defended him on the Lewinsky matter were wrong. Clinton decieved his own supporters into standing up for a lie.
We are facing a controversy which may very well establish the future judgment of how we should hold our leaders morality and lawfulness as a judge of that leader. We are comparing the term of one presidency to the future of the American justice system. The latter obviously is more important than the first. The simple questions we are answering here are: (1) Does an elected term in office take precedent over justice? and (2) Should we skip investigation, the deliberate check on the president in the constitution, just because a few people will be upset? The obvious answer dating back to 1215 and the Magna Carta: No!
7. Don't politicians "all do it"?
While corruption seems to be associated with politics, this association does not validate corruption. The solution is not to vote for a corrupt leader because they all do it. The solution is to find the candidate with character. Although much ignored, leaders with integrity are present.
8. He admitted it. Why pursue?
We must pursue because daily, more and more evidence points that Clinton may have perjured and obstructed justice. These are impeachable offenses. The president must obey the law just like everyone else.
9. If he is impeached, what will happen to the Clintongate
page?
It will remain open as both a reminder of the most corrupt president
in history and to track legal proceedings when he has left office.
The simple point I am attempting to make is that reasonable grounds
exist to investigate the president's scandals. Justice dictates that
this be done. To see some statistics surrounding the scandals
and what each scandal is about click here.
Return to the Issues and Quotes page
Return to the Clintongate Page
1. What does the 1996 welfare reform law do?
What the 1996 Republican welfare law does:
1. the rate of growth of welfare is being reduced
7 programs are affected by this law: AFDC, Food Stamps, school lunches,
ETC, and Foster care are included
Old rate of expansion: 6% annual growth
New rate of expansion: 4.5% annual growth
2. The law eliminates financial incentives to state governments.
In the old system money was awarded to states with increasing caseloads.
Now states that if states increase their caseload will have to pay
for the surplus by themselves. What this does is give an incentive
for states to work toward getting people off welfare. Before this
didn't matter because an increase in welfare recipients was met with more
money being awarded. There was no incentive to get those who have
been on welfare off. Now states are either work to help get welfare
recipients out of poverty or bear extra costs themselves. States
have an incentive to actually help people instead of dishing out more money
to them.
3. Work requirements
The new law sets a goal to reduce caseloads. The old laws simply
processed as many people possible through welfare without actually accomplishing
anything. Now people on welfare will be required to work for
money. This provides an incentive to get a steady job and a consequence
for abusing the system by living off of it. Before this bill a person
could be born on welfare, raised on welfare, live their life on welfare,
and have children on welfare while not having to work 1 single hour.
A PERSON COULD LIVE THEIR WHOLE LIFE SITTING AROUND WHILE THE GOVERNMENT
GAVE THEM HARD EARNED TAX DOLLARS IN PAYMENTS. A person would do
this because it is certainly easier to sit around watching TV all day waiting
for FREE MONEY to arrive than it is to work for a living. Now people
are encouraged to get a job. This helps recipients become active,
working members of society again. They have to get jobs to avoid
losing benefits. Once a person gets a job, they are set well on the
road to recovery. Benefits don't completely stop until after a steady
job is landed.
2. What about those who cannot work because they are physically incapable?
In this case, though it makes up a relatively
small portion of the welfare population, certain clauses exist allowing
certain benefits to be kept for those incapable of working.
3. What was wrong with the old welfare laws?
There was no reason under the old laws for
anyone to get off welfare. People began abusing the system and using
welfare as a lifestyle instead of an aid to help them get back on their
feet. People were literally living off welfare for long periods of
time. Many were not seeking jobs but instead were living off tax
dollars dished out through the government. As a result, poverty was
not being combated but encouraged. Recipients had no incentive and
no help getting back into the work force. Costs of welfare were extraordinary
as they were essentially the bulk of government spending. The high
cost and ineffectiveness of the old welfare system was one of the major
contributors to our national debt.
Recent statistics before the 1996 law (1992 - 1996)
1. In 1992 only 6.2 percent of recipients had jobs. 4.2
had part time jobs
2. Only 16.1% were training for a job
3. Only 11.8% were seeking work
4. 65.1% were not actively seeking work - only 0.2% of which was due
to layoff
5. 63.5% have a private home
6. 60% have been on welfare for over 1 year- over 20% for over 4 years
7. Average welfare family size was 3 people
8. $374 average monthly payment
9. 65% of children whose parents are on welfare are older than 5
10. over 50% have at least 1 year high school education
Other Welfare reform points:
Return to the Issues and Quotes page
1. The Ozone hole depletion is destroying the planet.
The ozone hole is a natural phenomenon. It has probably existed
for thousands of years - we have only recently discovered the hole (and
even the ozone layer for that matter) exists. We cannot assume the
hole to be man made when we have no proof that there was ever a time when
a hole did not exist.
First of all, ozone is created in many ways. (1)
When sunlight strikes oxygen in the atmosphere (this happens constantly
and instantaneously) (2) when lightening strikes in the atmosphere (3)
around certain electrical devices (ozone is the strange odor you can often
smell when turning on some electric devices such as air filter ionizers)
(4) as a byproduct of factory production (yes, many forms of smog are essentially
ozone). So in essence, ozone replenishes itself constantly as a mysterious
energy called sunlight enters the atmosphere. This is what currently,
and always has, happened. This is also why the ozone layer has survived
a myriad volcanic eruptions when extraordinary volumes of chlorine based
gases were released.
Antarctica, the location of the "hole," receives
almost constant sunlight in the summer and almost constant darkness
in the winter (during Antarctica's winter, it is a common occurrence to
receive all of 2 hours of sunlight per day!). Due to the earths tilt,
hours of daylight at the poles vary greatly. The ozone hole just
so happens to fluctuate with the change of seasons and the change of this
tilt. Half of the year it recovers while the other half it appears again.
The reason: lack of sunlight slows natural "production" of ozone during
the dark months so ozone depletes. Sunlight comes back and so does
ozone.
Reason 2: Antarctica has very active volcanic activity.
Volcanoes spew thousands of gallons of natural chlorine based gases (the
very same gases believed to destroy ozone when man made) into the air.
In fact, one recent volcanic eruption put more of these "dangerous" chlorine
based gases in the air than man had ever emitted in the history of his
existence - by over a thousand times! These gases come from deep
within the mantel of the earth. They are heated to extreme temperatures
by the mantel and volcanic activity. Warm air naturally rises (some
scientists note that many of the man made CFCs are too heavy to rise to
such altitudes as the ozone layer - except when heated extremely).
Volcanoes spew out thousands more gallons of these gases - preheated -
than human beings ever have. Yet one thing remains, even with all
these gases (both natural and man made), the ozone layer has yet to disappear!
Nature itself has released many more gallons of these gases than man could
ever release. Miraculously the ozone layer has replenished itself
every time and has survived fully intact.
I you still don't believe me, answer these questions:
(1) Why is the hole over Antarctica? Air currents across the world
spread these "dangerous" gases to all corners of the globe. They
do not naturally collect in polar regions. If these gases cover thousands
of miles to reach Antarctica, an unsettled continent, why don't they leave
traces, other holes, or signs behind. Do they magically click into destruct
mode when reaching the poles? I think not. Also, if nature naturally
creates ozone (when sunlight strikes oxygen in the upper atmosphere) wouldn't
the ozone layer replenish itself if damaged? This obviously compensates
for all the volcanoes in the world. The Antarctic is simply effected
by natural ozone deterioration and replenishment due to sunlight fluctuations.
2. What about this global warming that is going to flood the world
and kill us all?
Again we look to the earths volcanic
activity. Chlorine is not the only thing released from volcanoes.
Soot and ash are released in much volume. Carbon dioxide is also
released in great volumes. But isn't carbon dioxide the major greenhouse
gas that is going to cause the greenhouse effect? Well, nature has been
emitting large quantities of carbon dioxide for millions of years and they
have yet to cause any greenhouse effect. Carbon dioxide makes up
a very small portion of our atmosphere (which is almost entirely nitrogen
and oxygen). Carbon dioxide is also naturally filtered out by plants
(oxygen is then released). With all that history and science has
shown us about how carbon dioxide is released naturally then used by plants,
there are still those (and there always have been those) who speak of doomsday
predictions and environmental disasters. Nature has always coped
with carbon dioxide. It has been the major producer of carbon dioxide
throughout history. There is no evidence that nature will stop producing
carbon dioxide now nor is there any that it will lead to global warming.
Many often claim that temperatures are rising.
They fail to note that temperature recordings over the last century show
a constant pattern. Temperatures in the last two decades (the period
the entire global warming scare has developed) have actually shown a decline
of a fraction of a degree. Global Cooling! Another misconception
is the "this years summer is the hottest ever" fallacy. The summer
this year will always seem hotter than last years if you are currently
experiencing it. A simple glance at temperature records shows that
the trends remain constant. Almost every summer will have a day in
which some sort of record high will be experienced as will some record
low. This is simply due to weather conditions on that particular
day. We can't rely on one days record, much less one years, to judge
a weather cycle that has occurred for millions of years.
A few decades ago global cooling was the fear.
Now it is global warming. My point is that there have always been
environmental disaster claims. They never seem to come true for some reason.
3. Aren't we almost out of oil?
Environmentalists have been making claims for years
that we will run out of oil very soon. Anyone can look at the commodities
market and realize this is not so. We can safely assume that prices
on the commodities market directly reflect availability of resources.
Logic shows us that if oil were about to run out (meaning only a few barrels
remained) that the price of these barrels would be extremely high.
On the other hand, if oil were in abundance the price would be relatively
low. In other words, the price mechanism effectively allocates resources
such as oil (for example, fewer will be willing to pay $100 a barrel than
would $12 a barrel). If we let the price mechanism allocate oil,
situations such as shortages will be dealt with naturally. If prices
start to dramatically rise, people will naturally look for and convert
to alternative energy means. As for now, recent oil prices and gas
as low as $0.90 a gallon are clear indicators that oil is plentiful.
(Note to environmentalists: If you are still worried about running out of oil, build an electric car. Leave the rest of us alone to make our own choices. If we suddenly run out of oil next week (which we will not), you will be fine. As for me, that is a risk I will take)
When scientists estimate oil remaining, they estimate
known accessible oil. The problem with this is it lacks one
major element. New oil fields are being found daily and that new
methods of getting oil that was previously inaccessible are being invented
constantly. Thus the known accessible oil is constantly changing.
Estimates from twenty years ago ar much less than estimates of today due
to this. Future estimates will probably be higher than those of today.
Notice that I am not saying our oil reserve is infinite, just that there
are other oil reserves not known and not accessible today. For these
reasons, scientific estimations and predictions have yet to come true.
(By the way, the 70's oil shortages were caused mostly by interference
with the free market price mechanism. The market must be allowed
to allocate in order to prevent such a shortage. If we were truly
running out of oil then as many claimed, we would certainly be out today.)
4. Why don't you support protection of our environment?
I do support some aspects of protecting the environment.
I simply choose to reject the dogma that has replaced scientific and economic
fact in modern environmentalism. If somebody was dumping nuclear
waste in my backyard, I would certainly object. I support, as anybody
would, enough "environmentalism" to ensure sanitary living conditions.
This is not the environmentalism I disagree with. I simply call to
question the doomsday scenarios such as ozone depletion, global warming,
global cooling, energy depletion, overpopulation, and self destruction.
Often is the case in which one scientists or one group such as Greenpeace
can theorize an environmental doomsday scenario and it will automatically
be accepted as fact (often no questions asked). Anyone who dares
question it is an "enemy of the environment." Cartoons such as "Captain
Planet" brainwash our children to think that corporations and businesses
are bent solely on destroying the environment at all costs for no other
reason than to do so (For you environmentalist, such myth about business
is not and never has been the case). All I am pointing out is that
those who oppose certain environmental policy are not greed driven enemies
of the environment bent on world destruction. Those who oppose certain
environmental policy are merely asking questions and pointing out other
possible explanations.
Environmentalism has always been around. It
is not a new thing of recent decades. The car is an environmental
solution in some ways. It does keep horse droppings off our city
streets and therefore prevent spread of disease. That is exactly
how the car was viewed when introduced almost a century ago.
All I am essentially saying is that it is my right
to disagree with the modern environmental movement. Doing so, however,
does not make me a polluter or greed driven air poisoner to term Algore.
Because I oppose certain environmental legislation does not make me one
who wants to kill our planet and strip mine the rain forest. There
are two sides to the environmental issue just as there are to most issues.
By considering the other side to the treehuggers and greenpeacers we may
discover that some of their doomsday scenarios just may be questionable.
Tactics that have recently come into widespread use among those supposedly "objectively" discussing conservatism. I am not saying that all liberals use these tactics. I am merely pointing out what I have encountered and observed. These tactics often come into play as a form of avoiding an issue.
Demagoguery: This involves the use of appeals to the emotions to advance a political agenda. Strong language often accompanies. Examples:
2. Where is proof of a biased news media?
The news media has an overwhelming liberal
majority. Other than a few conservative magazines and radio talk
shows, most of the news media is liberal (Though I point out that these
conservative magazines openly admit a bias. The news media presents subjective
agendas as objective reporting). A major example of this slant appeared
during recent medicare reform attempts. When republicans introduced
a bill planning future medicare spending, even though it actually increased
spending at a rate of 6%, it was branded a cut by the media. Newspaper
headlines have included titles along the lines of "Clinton Saves Environment
from Republicans" and "Clinton Vetoes Republican Medicare cuts."
Another example is the frequent referral to Kenneth Starr with titles such
as the "republican special counsel." The media also jumped at a false
report that Starr admitted to leaks in a low scale magazine. It was
presented as fact by many aspects of the news media with little investigation
into it. Incidentally the report turned out to be completely false.
Figures show that over 90% of the media voted for Clinton. Articles
which report about a scandal or administration mishaps have been known
to be buried deep within newspapers as well. My advice is to research
stories that are questionable or that seem to use demagoguery. Read
the inside articles of newspapers. Look for news outlets that remain
unbiased (as an example, programs such as "Fox News" seem to have overall
balanced reporting).
3. Aren't you just as biased as you claim the news media is?
The difference here is that I admit my bias.
Did you honestly expect to find information on proletariat uprisings and
tax hikes on "The Conservative Capitalist Republican Homepage?"
The media, however, presents its information as objective reporting.
This "objective reporting" often includes subjective opinions. I
do, though, believe the liberal has every right to express his belief as
I do mine. For this reason I will be willing to listen to what liberals
happen to say. I often visit liberal sites and (very) occasionally
leave with a different view on an issue.