Republican obstructionism...

[bullypulpit]

The GOP has already begun its obstructionist agenda...first by delaying sending Hillary Clinton's nomination to the floor for a vote, and now delaying Eric Holder's confirmation for a week. The genesis of this particular bit of skulduggery lies in Mr. Holders statement before the Senate Judiciary Committee:

<blockqoute>If you look at the history of the use of that technique, used by the Khmer Rouge, used in the Inquisition, used by the Japanese and prosecuted by us as war crime -- we prosecuted our own soldiers for using it in Vietnam -- I agree with you Mr. Chairman, waterboarding is torture.</blockquote>

I'm certain there were may "spit-takes" as Bush staffers spewed coffee all over their desks as they heard this. Either we are a nation of laws, or we are not. Any failure by the Obama administration or the Obama DOJ to prosecute any and all Bush administration members for authorizing or conducting torture...The rule of law means nothing, the Republic is dead.

And if the Obama administration shirks its legal obligation to prosecute any and all members of the Bush administration for involvement in torture, the UN can pursue charges independent of any action, or lack thereof, by the new administration...<a href=http://rawstory.com/news/afp/Bush_Rumsfeld_should_be_pursued_for_01202009.html>Bush, Rumsfeld should be pursued for torture</a>.

[Classact]

If you nominate dip shits to important positions then it is the responsibility of "all" lawmakers to vet them for the appointment.

There are several voices in the House and yesterday I heard one in the Senate, senator Whitehouse from RI wants to take down Bush now that he's gone. Wish in one hand and shit in the other and decide which one to remove the tickle on your nose.

It's fun to watch the Democratic Party implode as they try to do what's in the best interest of the country... all they can do is argue amongst themselves.

What is the top legislation the Senate is working on as I click keys, it's a gift for the trial lawyers, a pay discrimination law. It seems the Supreme Court disagreed with the trial lawyers that an employee can't sue their employer for something that happened ten years ago. The Dems want to allow grandchildren of dead grandmoms the right to sue grandma's employer for injustices that happened in the 1950's... now that ought to help get us out of this economic slump, need lots more trial lawyers, more record keepers, records storage buildings and on and on.

[PostmodernProphet]

as I recall, Bush was still trying to get his appointments approved in August.....I suggest you don't complain of "obstructionism" in January......

[5stringJeff]

BP, the Democrats obstructed Bush for eight years, at every chance they got. Are you really going to start complaining about obstructionism now?

[cubfan]

I love it. Hillary's appointment is delayed by one day and she is voted in by a 94-2 vote. And you call that obstuctionism?

Holder is nothing more than a hack and he will still be approved. Geithner cheats on his taxes and now you want to let him run the IRS.

The humor here is almost laughable...

[darin]

What I don't get..

When a Congressman or woman Does EVERYTHING Democrats want, they are being praised for being Bi-Partisan. Yet, when they DISAGREE they are Obstructing the Process!

:-/

Dems - moreso Libs, really, want ONE thing: They want/expect/Demand people move beyond mere acceptance of their opionions and views...people must EMBRACE and SUPPORT and VALIDATE the liberal bullshit.

[cubfan]

It all depends on how you define "bi-partisan". It reminds me of a sitcom. A married man was explaining "comprimise" in his marriage to a single man. He gave an example of how his wife wanted a cat and he didn't. He said they comprimised and got a cat.

That is the definition of bi-partisan for the dems....

[hjmick]

Cry me a river.

[Silver]

The GOP has already begun its obstructionist agenda...first by delaying sending Hillary Clinton's nomination to the floor for a vote, and now delaying Eric Holder's confirmation for a week. The genesis of this particular bit of skulduggery lies in Mr. Holders statement before the Senate Judiciary Committee:

<blockqoute>If you look at the history of the use of that technique, used by the Khmer Rouge, used in the Inquisition, used by the Japanese and prosecuted by us as war crime -- we prosecuted our own soldiers for using it in Vietnam -- I agree with you Mr. Chairman, waterboarding is torture.</blockquote>

I'm certain there were may "spit-takes" as Bush staffers spewed coffee all over their desks as they heard this. Either we are a nation of laws, or we are not. Any failure by the Obama administration or the Obama DOJ to prosecute any and all Bush administration members for authorizing or conducting torture...The rule of law means nothing, the Republic is dead.

And if the Obama administration shirks its legal obligation to prosecute any and all members of the Bush administration for involvement in torture, the UN can pursue charges independent of any action, or lack thereof, by the new administration...<a href=http://rawstory.com/news/afp/Bush_Rumsfeld_should_be_pursued_for_01202009.html>Bush, Rumsfeld should be pursued for torture</a>.

The GOP has already begun its obstructionist agenda..???
-------

Really moron? Just 1 minute ago I heard Pres. Obama's press Sec. say that Congressional Republicans are eager to work with the new president....

That couldn't honestly be said about Dems working with Pres. Bush for the entire last eight years...they ridiculed and opposed Bush at ever opportunity....

And now you think the Repubs should and must roll over for Obama no matter what he decides....screw you moron....I hope the R's treat this new admin. EXACTLY the same way they were treated for 8 years...:beer:

[Little-Acorn]

Democrats "compromising" with Republicans, is a lot like a wolf and a sheep, respectively, "compromising" on what to have for dinner.

The resulting "compromise": The wolf has sheep for dinner, and the sheep doesn't.

[PostmodernProphet]

Democrats "compromising" with Republicans, is a lot like a wolf and a sheep, respectively, "compromising" on what to have for dinner.

The resulting "compromise": The wolf has sheep for dinner, and the sheep doesn't.

I find that offensive....now, perhaps if you made the Democrats hyenas instead of wolves......

[emmett]

The GOP has already begun its obstructionist agenda...first by delaying sending Hillary Clinton's nomination to the floor for a vote, and now delaying Eric Holder's confirmation for a week. The genesis of this particular bit of skulduggery lies in Mr. Holders statement before the Senate Judiciary Committee:

Ah........ 94-2 dude!

<blockqoute>If you look at the history of the use of that technique, used by the Khmer Rouge, used in the Inquisition, used by the Japanese and prosecuted by us as war crime -- we prosecuted our own soldiers for using it in Vietnam -- I agree with you Mr. Chairman, waterboarding is torture.</blockquote>

Oh well, can't argue with that particular piece of obvious evidence that you are indeed one wqell enlightened individual.

I'm certain there were may "spit-takes" as Bush staffers spewed coffee all over their desks as they heard this. Either we are a nation of laws, or we are not. Any failure by the Obama administration or the Obama DOJ to prosecute any and all Bush administration members for authorizing or conducting torture...The rule of law means nothing, the Republic is dead.

Obama was a Senator, shouldn't he also be held accountable?

And if the Obama administration shirks its legal obligation to prosecute any and all members of the Bush administration for involvement in torture, the UN can pursue charges independent of any action, or lack thereof, by the new administration...<a href=http://rawstory.com/news/afp/Bush_Rumsfeld_should_be_pursued_for_01202009.html>Bush, Rumsfeld should be pursued for torture</a>.

Man..... I wish I had your insight Bully!

[PostmodernProphet]

Man..... I wish I had your insight Bully!

twelve beers and it's yours, Emmett.....

[bullypulpit]

twelve beers and it's yours, Emmett.....

Nah...a bottle of Jim Beam Rye Whiskey. But you're missing the point. :rolleyes:

<blockquote> Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, a senior member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said he wanted to know more after Holder sidestepped questions about whether he intends to prosecute officials who condoned or carried out the interrogations.

"He's been very ambiguous," Cornyn told reporters. "We need more clarification." - <a href=http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/60462.html>McClatchy</a></blockquote>

It's really not that ambiguous Holder stated, quite clearly...

<blockquote>If you look at the history of the use of that technique, used by the Khmer Rouge, used in the Inquisition, used by the Japanese and prosecuted by us as war crime -- we prosecuted our own soldiers for using it in Vietnam -- I agree with you Mr. Chairman, waterboarding is torture.</blockquote>

So, under US law and international treaty obligation, the Obama DOJ is obligated to prosecute any and all who were involved in acts of torture at GITMO or any other US facility...No matter who they are...From those who authorized torture to those who carried out the acts. Let the facts stand for themselves whether they are found guilty or innocent, let the judicial process take its course.

Failing to do so is complicity in those crimes.

[PostmodernProphet]

Nah...a bottle of Jim Beam Rye Whiskey. But you're missing the point. :rolleyes:

<blockquote> Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, a senior member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said he wanted to know more after Holder sidestepped questions about whether he intends to prosecute officials who condoned or carried out the interrogations.

"He's been very ambiguous," Cornyn told reporters. "We need more clarification." - <a href=http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/60462.html>McClatchy</a></blockquote>

It's really not that ambiguous Holder stated, quite clearly...

<blockquote>If you look at the history of the use of that technique, used by the Khmer Rouge, used in the Inquisition, used by the Japanese and prosecuted by us as war crime -- we prosecuted our own soldiers for using it in Vietnam -- I agree with you Mr. Chairman, waterboarding is torture.</blockquote>

So, under US law and international treaty obligation, the Obama DOJ is obligated to prosecute any and all who were involved in acts of torture at GITMO or any other US facility...No matter who they are...From those who authorized torture to those who carried out the acts. Let the facts stand for themselves whether they are found guilty or innocent, let the judicial process take its course.

Failing to do so is complicity in those crimes.
so you would agree that Holder should not be AG, being ignorant of the nature of torture?.....

[Gaffer]

In WW2 the Japanese were not executed for water boarding. They were executed for REAL torture and actual deaths by torture. And it wasn't for a few water boarding incidents, it was for hundreds of thousands of barbaric incidents. To even compare the two is ludicrous.

In the Pacific campaigns the US did not take many prisoners. Does that mean all wars should be fought that way?

[red states rule]

The GOP has already begun its obstructionist agenda...first by delaying sending Hillary Clinton's nomination to the floor for a vote, and now delaying Eric Holder's confirmation for a week. The genesis of this particular bit of skulduggery lies in Mr. Holders statement before the Senate Judiciary Committee:

<blockqoute>If you look at the history of the use of that technique, used by the Khmer Rouge, used in the Inquisition, used by the Japanese and prosecuted by us as war crime -- we prosecuted our own soldiers for using it in Vietnam -- I agree with you Mr. Chairman, waterboarding is torture.</blockquote>

I'm certain there were may "spit-takes" as Bush staffers spewed coffee all over their desks as they heard this. Either we are a nation of laws, or we are not. Any failure by the Obama administration or the Obama DOJ to prosecute any and all Bush administration members for authorizing or conducting torture...The rule of law means nothing, the Republic is dead.

And if the Obama administration shirks its legal obligation to prosecute any and all members of the Bush administration for involvement in torture, the UN can pursue charges independent of any action, or lack thereof, by the new administration...<a href=http://rawstory.com/news/afp/Bush_Rumsfeld_should_be_pursued_for_01202009.html>Bush, Rumsfeld should be pursued for torture</a>.



So questions about how Holder would do his job are off limits BP? This is the guy who said there was no law against funding terrorists or terrorists groups

Lets see how the liberal media is covering Holder - and how the covered John Ashcroft in 2000 (and what questions Dems raised)


snip

ABC's Charles Gibson noted Obama's promise of “diversity of political party, of gender, of geography and of race” and reported “Eric Holder would be the first African-American” Attorney General. In December of 2000, the late Peter Jennings stressed how Ashcroft is “from the conservative wing of the Republican Party. And some of the positions he's taken as a politician have galvanized liberal opposition to his nomination today.”

Katie Couric, on CBS, trumpeted Holder as “another historic choice,” but eight years ago Dan Rather decided “anti-abortion groups and the self-described Religious Right could not be happier” with Ashcroft who is “known for his tough anti-abortion stand. Planned Parenthood immediately urged Congress not to confirm him.”

On NBC, Brian Williams simply summarized Holder's resume as “a veteran lawyer, former U.S. Attorney, number two person at the Justice Department during the Clinton administration. If confirmed, Eric Holder would be the first African-American to become the nation's top law enforcement officer.” Filling in for Tom Brokaw in 2000, Williams referred to Ashcroft as a “conservative Missouri Republican Senator” and asserted the selection “calms the far right politically.”


Network-by-network comparisons from Friday, December 22, 2000 (as recounted on the December 26, 2000 MRC CyberAlert which has more on coverage that night of the selection delayed by the elongated post-election day battles) versus Tuesday, November 18, 2008:

ABC:

2000, World News Tonight. Anchor Peter Jennings opened the show by stressing liberal opposition:


George W. Bush has chosen the person he wants to be Attorney General. He is the 58-year old soon to be former Senator John Ashcroft of Missouri. Senator Ashcroft lost his bid for re-election this year. The Senator is a former law professor and former Attorney General of Missouri and Governor -- from the conservative wing of the Republican Party. And some of the positions he’s taken as a politician have galvanized liberal opposition to his nomination today.

2008, World News. Charles Gibson:


Since he was elected, Barack Obama has largely been staying out of public view, working on his cabinet. He has signaled that in the cabinet, there will be diversity, diversity of political party, of gender, of geography and of race. Today, ABC News has learned he will turn to one of his close associates to be the new Attorney General. If confirmed, Eric Holder would be the first African-American to hold that post.

CBS Evening News.

2000, Dan Rather began:


Good evening. Anti-abortion groups and the self-described Religious Right could not be happier with President-elect George Bush’s nominee for U.S. Attorney General. Bush today named John Ashcroft, a just-defeated Republican Senator from Missouri known for his tough anti-abortion stand. Planned Parenthood immediately urged Congress not to confirm him. Bush also named New Jersey Governor Christie Whitman, who supports abortion rights, for a post with no role in abortion policy. She was picked to head the Environmental Protection Agency.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-baker/2008/11/18/holder-hailed-2000-ashcroft-marked-sop-far-right

[bullypulpit]

Read and heed...

<center><a href=http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2007/10/waterboarding-is-torture-perio/>Waterboarding is Torture… Period</a></center>

<blockquote>It’s a clear-cut case: Waterboarding can without any reservation be labeled as torture. It fulfils all of the four central criteria that according to the United Nations Convention Against Torture (UNCAT) defines an act of torture. First, when water is forced into your lungs in this fashion, in addition to the pain you are likely to experience an immediate and extreme fear of death. You may even suffer a heart attack from the stress or damage to the lungs and brain from inhalation of water and oxygen deprivation. In other words there is no doubt that waterboarding causes severe physical and/or mental suffering – one central element in the UNCAT’s definition of torture. In addition the CIA’s waterboarding clearly fulfills the three additional definition criteria stated in the Convention for a deed to be labeled torture, since it is 1) done intentionally, 2) for a specific purpose and 3) by a representative of a state – in this case the US. - Professor Bent Sørensen, Senior Medical Consultant to the IRCT and former member of the United Nations Committee against Torture</blockquote>

<blockquote>Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) asked, “General, do you believe that waterboarding is consistent with Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions?”
After pausing a moment to think, Maples replied, “No, sir, I don’t.”
“Do you think it’s humane?” Levin asked.
“No, sir, I think it would go beyond that bound.” - General Michael Maples, director of the DIA, in testimony before Congress 02/2008</blockquote>

And, if you don't believe it, perhaps we should get together. I'll strap you head down on an incline board, put a heavy cloth over your mouth and nose and start pouring water.

[bullypulpit]

So questions about how Holder would do his job are off limits BP? This is the guy who said there was no law against funding terrorists or terrorists groups

Lets see how the liberal media is covering Holder - and how the covered John Ashcroft in 2000 (and what questions Dems raised)


snip

ABC's Charles Gibson noted Obama's promise of “diversity of political party, of gender, of geography and of race” and reported “Eric Holder would be the first African-American” Attorney General. In December of 2000, the late Peter Jennings stressed how Ashcroft is “from the conservative wing of the Republican Party. And some of the positions he's taken as a politician have galvanized liberal opposition to his nomination today.”

Katie Couric, on CBS, trumpeted Holder as “another historic choice,” but eight years ago Dan Rather decided “anti-abortion groups and the self-described Religious Right could not be happier” with Ashcroft who is “known for his tough anti-abortion stand. Planned Parenthood immediately urged Congress not to confirm him.”

On NBC, Brian Williams simply summarized Holder's resume as “a veteran lawyer, former U.S. Attorney, number two person at the Justice Department during the Clinton administration. If confirmed, Eric Holder would be the first African-American to become the nation's top law enforcement officer.” Filling in for Tom Brokaw in 2000, Williams referred to Ashcroft as a “conservative Missouri Republican Senator” and asserted the selection “calms the far right politically.”


Network-by-network comparisons from Friday, December 22, 2000 (as recounted on the December 26, 2000 MRC CyberAlert which has more on coverage that night of the selection delayed by the elongated post-election day battles) versus Tuesday, November 18, 2008:

ABC:

2000, World News Tonight. Anchor Peter Jennings opened the show by stressing liberal opposition:


George W. Bush has chosen the person he wants to be Attorney General. He is the 58-year old soon to be former Senator John Ashcroft of Missouri. Senator Ashcroft lost his bid for re-election this year. The Senator is a former law professor and former Attorney General of Missouri and Governor -- from the conservative wing of the Republican Party. And some of the positions he’s taken as a politician have galvanized liberal opposition to his nomination today.

2008, World News. Charles Gibson:


Since he was elected, Barack Obama has largely been staying out of public view, working on his cabinet. He has signaled that in the cabinet, there will be diversity, diversity of political party, of gender, of geography and of race. Today, ABC News has learned he will turn to one of his close associates to be the new Attorney General. If confirmed, Eric Holder would be the first African-American to hold that post.

CBS Evening News.

2000, Dan Rather began:


Good evening. Anti-abortion groups and the self-described Religious Right could not be happier with President-elect George Bush’s nominee for U.S. Attorney General. Bush today named John Ashcroft, a just-defeated Republican Senator from Missouri known for his tough anti-abortion stand. Planned Parenthood immediately urged Congress not to confirm him. Bush also named New Jersey Governor Christie Whitman, who supports abortion rights, for a post with no role in abortion policy. She was picked to head the Environmental Protection Agency.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-baker/2008/11/18/holder-hailed-2000-ashcroft-marked-sop-far-right

The GOP can question all they want. They should not, however, do so in expectation that Obama or his Attorney General should ignore the law.

[red states rule]

The GOP can question all they want. They should not, however, do so in expectation that Obama or his Attorney General should ignore the law.

The Republicans are not doing that. They are asking questions based on his past actions and statements

Dems, on the other hand did in 2000 what you are now accusing Repulicans of doing - and what you calim to be so upset about

[stephanie]

Michelle Malkin has this about Eric Holder

Pay attention to Eric Holder’s law firm and Gitmo detainees
By Michelle Malkin • January 23, 2009 02:41 PM A good friend writes:

[A]s nearly 100 of the remaining detainees are Yemenis, reflecting that country’s refusal to assure security for repatriated Yemenis, note that AG nominee Eric Holder is a senior partner with Covington & Burling, a prestigious Washington, D.C. law firm, which represents 17 Yemenis currently held at Gitmo. From the C & B website:

The firm represents 17 Yemeni nationals and one Pakistani citizen held at Guantánamo Bay. The Supreme Court will soon review the D.C. Circuit’s ruling that ordered the dismissal of a number of habeas petitions filed by Guantánamo detainees; some of our clients are petitioners in the Supreme Court case. We expect to play a substantial role in the briefing. We also plan to petition the Supreme Court to hear our Pakistani client’s appeal from the D.C. Circuit’s order dismissing his case. Further, we are pursuing relief in the D.C. Circuit under the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 for all of our clients. On a separate front, we filed amicus briefs and coordinated the amicus effort in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld in which the Supreme Court in the summer of 2006 invalidated President Bush’s military commissions and in which we have obtained favorable rulings that our clients have rights under the Fifth Amendment and the Geneva Conventions.
Covington & Burling’s Gitmo bar roster has included some of the most radical detainee advocates; see David Remes, who peeled down to his underwear at a press conference in Yemen to draw attention to his clients’ plight and Marc Falkoff, who published a book of detainee poetry and who, in the book’s intro, compared their heroic struggle to the Jews held in concentration camps and Japanese Americans held in internment camps during WWII. [One of Falkoff's "gentle, thoughtful" young poets--a Kuwaiti "cleared for release" and repatriated in 2005--blew himself up in a truck bomb in Mosul last March, killing 13 Iraqi army soldiers and wounding 42 others.]

The fact that Mr. Holder, while Deputy Attorney General, pushed for the release of 16 violent FALN terrorists against the advice of the FBI, the US Attorneys who prosecuted them and the NYPD officers who were maimed by them, suggests that he was perfectly willing to put politics before the national security interests of the country. He is not suited for the job of attorney general, which is central to the issues surrounding the disposition of war on terror detainees.
http://michellemalkin.com/2009/01/23/pay-attention-to-eric-holders-law-firm-and-gitmo-detainees/

[johnwk]

The GOP has already begun its obstructionist agenda....

Good! The GOP ought not aid and abet in any of the Democrat’s socialistic/big government agenda legislation. And it should especially vote no on any of the Democrat’s proposed stimulus legislation unless it begins with ending the slavish tax upon the property which working people living in Harlem have in their labor. As I have pointed out elsewhere, ending federal taxation upon earned wages which were never intended to be taxed as “income” under the Sixteenth Amendment, could be made up by a federal luxury tax laid on specifically chosen articles of consumption.

For a recent application of this tax see The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c101:H.R.5835:http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c101:4:./temp/~c101exSUxe) click on 4. “Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate)[H.R.5835.ENR]”, after which you may scroll down to TITLE XI--REVENUE PROVISIONS, and then click on :
PART III--TAXES ON LUXURY ITEMS




`SEC. 4001. PASSENGER VEHICLES.

There is hereby imposed on the 1st retail sale of any passenger vehicle a tax equal to 10 percent of the price for which so sold to the extent such price exceeds $30,000.


`SEC. 4002. BOATS.
There is hereby imposed on the 1st retail sale of any boat a tax equal to 10 percent of the price for which so sold to the extent such price exceeds $100,000.

`SEC. 4003. AIRCRAFT.
There is hereby imposed on the 1st retail sale of any aircraft a tax equal to 10 percent of the price for which so sold to the extent such price exceeds $250,000.

`SEC. 4006. JEWELRY.
There is hereby imposed on the 1st retail sale of any jewelry a tax equal to 10 percent of the price for which so sold to the extent such price exceeds $10,000.

`SEC. 4007. FURS.
There is hereby imposed on the 1st retail sale of the following articles a tax equal to 10 percent of the price for which so sold to the extent such price exceeds $10,000:

I believe Obama and the Democrat Party Leadership will do everything imaginable to keep the tax on working people’s paychecks alive because it is used to keep working people poor and makes them dependent upon government for necessities of life. And this does not even take into account how the slave tax on earned wages is used to control the very lives of working people, and also used as a weapon against those who would dare speak out against the Democrat Leadership.

Question is, why does Obama and the Democrat Party Leadership want to keep alive a tax which taxes the earned wages of hard working fathers living in Harlem, South Philly, Newark N.J., S.E. Washington, D.C. etc., who can barely meet their family’s needs, when Obama could once and for all end this slavish tax, [a tax upon the property working people have in their labor], and raise that lost revenue from a tax upon articles of luxury?


JWK

If we can make 51 percent of America’s population dependent upon a federal government check, we can then bribe them for their vote, keep ourselves in power and keep the remaining portion of America’s working population [Joe the American plumber] enslaved to pay the bills ____ Our Washington Establishment’s Marxist game plan, a plan to establish a federal plantation and redistribute the wages earned by labor.

[red states rule]

Dems went with a LUXURY TAX, and it was such a disaster Bill Clinton had to repeal it

Dems never learn from their past mistakes and insist on doing them over and over again

and we the people pay the price

[johnwk]

Dems went with a LUXURY TAX, and it was such a disaster Bill Clinton had to repeal it

Dems never learn from their past mistakes and insist on doing them over and over again

and we the people pay the price

Exactly! But this is the very beauty of the tax! Let me explain.

This type of tax [taxing specifically chosen articles of luxury] is self regulating and allows the market place to determine the allowable amount of tax on each selected article --- tax the article too high and the flow of revenue into the federal treasury is diminished as pointed out in Federalist 21. (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed21.asp)

It is a signal advantage of taxes on articles of consumption, that they contain in their own nature a security against excess. They prescribe their own limit; which cannot be exceeded without defeating the end proposed, that is, an extension of the revenue. When applied to this object, the saying is as just as it is witty, that, "in political arithmetic, two and two do not always make four .'' If duties are too high, they lessen the consumption; the collection is eluded; and the product to the treasury is not so great as when they are confined within proper and moderate bounds. This forms a complete barrier against any material oppression of the citizens by taxes of this class, and is itself a natural limitation of the power of imposing them.


Note that the outrageous 10 percent imposed upon certain specific articles because of Congress’s greed caused diminishes sales of those consumer articles and adversely affected the luxury boat building industry as you have pointed out which in turn immediately prompted Congress to repeal the tax in 1991 (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=102&session=1&vote=00263)

Had the tax on luxury boats only been one or two percent it probably would have been paid without much resistance. But, the tax was an outrageous 10 percent and the market place responded to limit Congress‘s greedy desire for revenue. As documented in Federalist No. 21, our founding fathers carefully devised a tax plan allowing the market place to prevent an “extension of the revenue” and it avoided class warfare now engaged in under a tax laid upon the wages of labor.

Unfortunately, it seems quite obvious to thinking people that the Democrat Party leadership would dread a return to our Constitution’s original tax plan [Duties, Imposts, and miscellaneous internal Excise taxes on consumption, with the additional power to lay and collect a direct apportioned tax among the states to make up any shortfall] which would not only limit Congress’s greed and make members of Congress fiscally accountable to their state Legislatures, the founder’s tax plan would also end Congress’s ability to manipulate the private lives of America’s working middle class and preclude class warfare which Obama did in fact engaged in to win an election.

In any event, we will see what happens and if Obama really does care about our nation’s laboring class people living in Harlem and if he will work to end the federal tax upon their earned wages which were never intended to be considered as “income” under the Sixteenth Amendment! But I suspect he will continue to allow Congress to tax the property which labor class people have in their labor because the tax is not really designed to raise necessary revenue. It is designed by the Democrat Party leadership to make people poor and dependent upon government, and also insure government has an iron fisted federal control over the lives of working class people who labor on what amounts to be a federal plantation.

JWK

"It has been well said that, 'The property which every man has in his own labor, as it is the original foundation of all other property, so it is the most sacred and inviolable.'" ___ Justice Field in the case of Butchers' Union Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111 U.S. 746 (1883).

[red states rule]

This sums up why the "yacht tax" failed - and why a luxury tax will fail again

RISING TIDE
January 1, 1996
TRANSCRIPT
Kwame Holman looks at how a 1990 budget concession has failed to produce revenue, because a luxury tax it instituted, back fired


JOE DOCKERY, Boat Owner: It's nice to finally be able to see it completed, boy, and it has been two and a half years.

KWAME HOLMAN: Joe Dockery is, in a word, rich, on this particular day, rich enough to take delivery on this 72-foot sailing yacht, custom-designed and built by Alden Yachts of Portsmouth, Rhode Island. Cost: $2 1/2 million.

JOE DOCKERY: I'm very content. It looks just super.

KWAME HOLMAN: These are the carpenters, fiberglass, and metal workers, electricians who actually did the work. Most are first and second generation Portuguese, skilled craftsmen with a specialty in boat-building. They are not rich, but their glad Joe Dockery is. His one order alone kept 20 workers employed full-time at Alden for two and a half years. And that's not counting the subcontractors who built the 100-foot carbon-fiber mast, molded the lightweight high-tech hull, and sewed the sails. Tony Abreau made all the customized stainless steel pieces.

TONY ABREAU, Metal Worker: This big piece over there cost between five and six thousand dollars.

KWAME HOLMAN: Joe Dockery, who owns a string of successful car dealerships in New Jersey, didn't hesitate to choose Alden to build his boat. In fact, this is his second Alden. That's his first, a 54-footer now for sale. But Dockery wouldn't even consider having his new boat built here or anywhere else in the United States until Congress repealed the federal luxury tax on boats. That tax would have cost him about $240,000, a bill he could afford but refused to pay.

JOE DOCKERY: You're being chosen as a special person to pay extra, and I didn't see the logic behind it. I found it insulting. I was very close to building a boat in Finland, I mean, very close.

KWAME HOLMAN: According to David MacFarlane, president of Alden Yachts, Dockery's order brought the company back from the brink of collapse. MacFarlane thinks back to November 1990, when President Bush and the Democratic majority in Congress agreed to levy the luxury tax. He says he still can't believe they did it.

DAVE MacFARLANE, Alden Yachts: I don't know anybody in the Marine industry that didn't know that there was a total disaster to start, and it's still amazing to think how somebody could come up with an idea that would shut off a business, and everybody that was in the business knew this would happen, and yet it floated right through.

KWAME HOLMAN: The theory behind the luxury tax sounded simple enough. Congress believed anyone willing to spend $100,000 or more on a new boat surely would be willing to pay an additional 10 percent to the federal government. But that didn't happen. Rather than pay the tax, many people in the market to buy a boat either didn't buy one, or bought one overseas. As a result, the luxury tax didn't bring in much money at all, and the customers' reluctance to buy put the boat-building business, particularly here in Rhode Island, out of business. We first visited Rhode Island in June of 1992. The luxury tax had been in effect for 18 months. Tens of thousands of jobs had been lost across the country, thousands in Rhode Island alone.

for the complete article

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/budget/budget_1-1.html

[johnwk]

This sums up why the "yacht tax" failed - and why a luxury tax will fail again



And where will the socialists in Congress get tax revenue if they may only tax articles of luxury and may no longert tax "income"?


JWK

[KSigMason]

Payback's a b****. The Democrats did all they could to hinder Bush and no one seemed to mind it then, but now the Republicans do it and it's wrong. Seems like a double standard to me; hypocrisy comes to mind.

[Bonnie]

Michelle Malkin has this about Eric Holder

Pay attention to Eric Holder’s law firm and Gitmo detainees
By Michelle Malkin • January 23, 2009 02:41 PM A good friend writes:

[A]s nearly 100 of the remaining detainees are Yemenis, reflecting that country’s refusal to assure security for repatriated Yemenis, note that AG nominee Eric Holder is a senior partner with Covington & Burling, a prestigious Washington, D.C. law firm, which represents 17 Yemenis currently held at Gitmo. From the C & B website:

The firm represents 17 Yemeni nationals and one Pakistani citizen held at Guantánamo Bay. The Supreme Court will soon review the D.C. Circuit’s ruling that ordered the dismissal of a number of habeas petitions filed by Guantánamo detainees; some of our clients are petitioners in the Supreme Court case. We expect to play a substantial role in the briefing. We also plan to petition the Supreme Court to hear our Pakistani client’s appeal from the D.C. Circuit’s order dismissing his case. Further, we are pursuing relief in the D.C. Circuit under the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 for all of our clients. On a separate front, we filed amicus briefs and coordinated the amicus effort in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld in which the Supreme Court in the summer of 2006 invalidated President Bush’s military commissions and in which we have obtained favorable rulings that our clients have rights under the Fifth Amendment and the Geneva Conventions.
Covington & Burling’s Gitmo bar roster has included some of the most radical detainee advocates; see David Remes, who peeled down to his underwear at a press conference in Yemen to draw attention to his clients’ plight and Marc Falkoff, who published a book of detainee poetry and who, in the book’s intro, compared their heroic struggle to the Jews held in concentration camps and Japanese Americans held in internment camps during WWII. [One of Falkoff's "gentle, thoughtful" young poets--a Kuwaiti "cleared for release" and repatriated in 2005--blew himself up in a truck bomb in Mosul last March, killing 13 Iraqi army soldiers and wounding 42 others.]

The fact that Mr. Holder, while Deputy Attorney General, pushed for the release of 16 violent FALN terrorists against the advice of the FBI, the US Attorneys who prosecuted them and the NYPD officers who were maimed by them, suggests that he was perfectly willing to put politics before the national security interests of the country. He is not suited for the job of attorney general, which is central to the issues surrounding the disposition of war on terror detainees.
http://michellemalkin.com/2009/01/23/pay-attention-to-eric-holders-law-firm-and-gitmo-detainees/


You know Steph it really makes me wonder who people like Mr Holder and some others ...side of this war are on???

[Gaffer]

You know Steph it really makes me wonder who people like Mr Holder and some others ...side of this war are on???

He's on the side of islam, because they can be used in the communist take over of America. They don't even learn by their own actions in iran, where the communists were suppose to take control and were blind sided by the islamists. The commies were all executed.

[avatar4321]

The GOP can question all they want. They should not, however, do so in expectation that Obama or his Attorney General should ignore the law.

Yet, they will ignore it anyway.