Pelosi speaks out in support of the Transaction Tax. (legal, drug, marijuana)

[steven_h]

This link gives you more information on the bill, titles, committees, related bills, congressional actions and amendments

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:H.R.4646

The bill is sonsored by Rep. Chaka Fattah who is a member of the Dem Socialist Party.

On the DSP website:

Democratic Socialists knowing the world societies are interdependent, hope to establish a world of "cooperative commonwealths"-- a world of nations which will cooperate with each other for the common good.

Thus, democratic socialism is the radical idea that people should live and work cooperatively in a democratic society. A socialist society will provide for each individual's basic needs for food, clothing, shelter, transportantion, and health. -end

They start by making it clear that they are NOT Socialists and end the page with the above. Sounds like Socialism to me. I hope this bill doesn't stand a chance.

The 2009 LIST : Democratic Socialist Party of America
Co-Chairs
Hon. Raúl M. Grijalva (AZ-07)
Hon. Lynn Woolsey (CA-06)
Vice Chairs
Hon. Diane Watson (CA-33)
Hon. Sheila Jackson-Lee (TX-18)
Hon. Mazie Hirono (HI-02)
Hon. Dennis Kucinich (OH-10)
Senate Members
Hon. Bernie Sanders (VT)
House Members
Hon. Neil Abercrombie (HI-0
Hon. Tammy Baldwin (WI-02)
Hon. Xavier Becerra (CA-31)
Hon. Madeleine Bordallo (GU-AL)
Hon. Robert Brady (PA-01)
Hon. Corrine Brown (FL-03)
Hon. Michael Capuano (MA-08)
Hon. André Carson (IN-07)
Hon. Donna Christensen (VI-AL)
Hon. Yvette Clarke (NY-11)
Hon. William “Lacy” Clay (MO-01)
Hon. Emanuel Cleaver (MO-05)
Hon. Steve Cohen (TN-09)
Hon. John Conyers (MI-14)
Hon. Elijah Cummings (MD-07)
Hon. Danny Davis (IL-07)
Hon. Peter DeFazio (OR-04)
Hon. Rosa DeLauro (CT-03)
Rep. Donna F. Edwards (MD-04)
Hon. Keith Ellison (MN-05)
Hon. Sam Farr (CA-17)
Hon. Chaka Fattah (PA-02) <<<< Bill sponsor
Hon. Bob Filner (CA-51)
Hon. Barney Frank (MA-04)
Hon. Marcia L. Fudge (OH-11)
Hon. Alan Grayson (FL-08)
Hon. Luis Gutierrez (IL-04)
Hon. John Hall (NY-19)
Hon. Phil Hare (IL-17)
Hon. Maurice Hinchey (NY-22)
Hon. Michael Honda (CA-15)
Hon. Jesse Jackson, Jr. (IL-02)
Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson (TX-30)
Hon. Hank Johnson (GA-04)
Hon. Marcy Kaptur (OH-09)
Hon. Carolyn Kilpatrick (MI-13)
Hon. Barbara Lee (CA-09)
Hon. John Lewis (GA-05)
Hon. David Loebsack (IA-02)
Hon. Ben R. Lujan (NM-3)
Hon. Carolyn Maloney (NY-14)
Hon. Ed Markey (MA-07)
Hon. Jim McDermott (WA-07)
Hon. James McGovern (MA-0)
Hon. George Miller (CA-07)
Hon. Gwen Moore (WI-04)
Hon. Jerrold Nadler (NY-08)
Hon. Eleanor Holmes-Norton (DC-AL)
Hon. John Olver (MA-01)
Hon. Ed Pastor (AZ-04)
Hon. Donald Payne (NJ-10)
Hon. Chellie Pingree (ME-01)
Hon. Charles Rangel (NY-15)
Hon. Laura Richardson (CA-37)
Hon. Lucille Roybal-Allard (CA-34)
Hon. Bobby Rush (IL-01)
Hon. Linda Sánchez (CA-47)
Hon. Jan Schakowsky (IL-09)
Hon. José Serrano (NY-16)
Hon. Louise Slaughter (NY-28)
Hon. Pete Stark (CA-13)
Hon. Bennie Thompson (MS-02)
Hon. John Tierney (MA-06)
Hon. Nydia Velazquez (NY-12)
Hon. Maxine Waters (CA-35)
Hon. Mel Watt (NC-12)
Hon. Henry Waxman (CA-30)
Hon. Peter Welch (VT-AL)
Hon. Robert Wexler (FL-19)

[evilnewbie]

It sickens me that Liberal LEADERS want something that has no chance of passing because of how BAD it is... that Liberals LOVE this bill even though its bad for people but gives them cash to control their sheep... it sickens me that people use money to control other people... liberals sicken me...

[thecoalman]

That would be an enormous expense for small business's dealing with a lot of high value material and a low profit margin. Everyone isn't making 50% retail. In my business I was lucky if it was 20%. That 1% is now 5% of your net.

[SGL1]

The woman that thinks 2+2=cat should have a sock stuffed in her mouth everytime she opens that idiot trap of hers. It is going to be soooo good to see her booted soon. 2 Years was 2 years too long. Go raise grapes you traitorous, corrupt slag.

[roysoldboy]

Originally Posted by stillkit

I figured that bogus e-mail would make its way to CD. Do all you suckers just accept anything you get via e-mail without question? Or, do care only about being outraged and not the truth?

Here's the bill in question:

Bill Summary & Status - 111th Congress (2009 - 2010) - H.R.4646 - THOMAS (Library of Congress)|

Please note that it has NO co-sponsor's (which is the kiss of death in Congress) and was referred to committee back in Feb, where it died.

It has ZERO chance of passing.

But....suppose it did! What that e-mail doesn't tell you is "the rest of the story."

That proposed tax would, indeed, be a hefty one as it would apply to any transaction, retail or wholesale, involving any kind of financial instrument, such as a check, debit card or deposit slip.

It would take effect in the calender year following passage and, until 2017, the extra money would be used to pay off the full national debt. It's projected to take 7 years. Of course, in the meantime, you'd still be paying income tax too, but the offset would be that everyone who filed would get a 1% deduction off the gross income.

The tax would not apply to stocks and bonds until some sort of international agreement on taxing stocks could be worked out.

Additionally, a bi-partisan working group would be appointed to go over the entire federal budget and spending programs. Their recommendations for cutting spending would be fast-tracked in both Houses of Congress for quick passage. Amendments would not be allowed.

But...I saved the best part for last! In 2017, the federal income tax WOULD BE ELIMINATED TOTALLY AND FOREVER. After that date, the only federal tax you would pay would be the transaction tax. No more filing returns, no more deductions.

So...what do you say now? Everybody talks about paying off the national debt and reducing spending, in addition to griping about the income tax, so here's a way to do all of it at once, in a mere 7 years.

Still think it's a bad idea?

Your link disappeared over 5 hours after I got back here to see you had linked it. This thing sounds so good that I wonder why it was kept from even being discussed last winter. Surely there is something wrong with it or it wouldn't have been without sponsors. BTW, somebody had to draw it up and then offer it so I wonder who that was.

Did you listen to the long drawn out words of Nasty Nancy about it? If not I am sure that my link still works.

[roysoldboy]

Originally Posted by JazzyTallGuy

It will never gtain any political traction. There simply won't be enough support for it.

Why not, TallGuy? If it is as good a deal as Stillkit says it is it seems to me that the only thing that could keep it from at least being discussed in the House as much as Pelosi seems to like it.

[roysoldboy]

Originally Posted by stillkit

Why am I not surprised that nobody in this thread is paying the slightest bit of attention to the bill itself, which I posted a link to, or to its likelihood of passing?

Your link was good for 30 minutes only and by the time you posted this post it had been dead for 30 minutes. Is there a possibility that that could have something to do with the answer to your question?

[ergohead]

Originally Posted by thecoalman

That would be an enormous expense for small business's dealing with a lot of high value material and a low profit margin. Everyone isn't making 50% retail. In my business I was lucky if it was 20%. That 1% is now 5% of your net.

Euphemistically, you can think of it as "value added" so long as you believe that the Federal Government spends your money wisely.

[lifelongMOgal]

Originally Posted by stillkit

That's probably a good idea, considering the housing market right now and what a huge hit it would be on both the seller and the buyer.

But, the idea has merit IF you're tired of the federal income tax and IF your really serious about controlling spending and paying off the national debt.

Unfortunately, it seems everyone else in this thread hasn't got the slightest interest in any of that. They'd rather just talk trash about Pelosi.

No wonder we have problems we can't solve.

Sadly you make many assumptions about what you presume others think. I'd be for a consumption tax IF all other federal taxes were removed simultaneously. However, history has shown us that the government cannot wean itself off the teat of the taxpayer any more than those receiving social entitlements can wean themselves off the government teat.

Is it possible to pay off the national debt? I don't know. It has been proposed by others that there is not enough gold in the world to pay off the current US debt. If this is true then what are we paying and to whose benefit if the debt cannot be paid off? Are we already at the point that Soviet Russia was when they defaulted on their national debt? Maybe. Time will tell.

[thecoalman]

Originally Posted by lifelongMOgal

Sadly you make many assumptions about what you presume others think. I'd be for a consumption tax IF all other federal taxes were removed simultaneously. However, history has shown us that the government cannot wean itself off the teat of the taxpayer....

Exactly it's always more taxes and these extra ones is where you pay the most. What we need is the total accumaulted tax listed on item, you want to see people wake up that will do it when they see 50% of an item is for tax...