Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 32
Like Tree10Likes

Thread: Massive tax package offers breaks for just about everyone

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

  1. #21
    Senior Member Judy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    55,883
    Quote Originally Posted by johnwk View Post
    Under the alleged fairtax, which is sold as a national sales tax and would be Congress' primary method to raise a federal revenue, the rule of apportionment is both ignored and circumvented. So, how can you say you support our founder's rule of apportionment?


    Let our founders tell you in their own words their intentions regarding apportionment as it applies to taxation:

    Pinckney addressing the S.C. ratification convention with regard to the rule of apportionment :

    “With regard to the general government imposing internal taxes upon us, he contended that it was absolutely necessary they should have such a power: requisitions had been in vain tried every year since the ratification of the old Confederation, and not a single state had paid the quota required of her. The general government could not abuse this power, and favor one state and oppress another, as each state was to be taxed only in proportion to its representation.” 4 Elliot‘s, S.C., 305-6

    And see:
    “The proportion of taxes are fixed by the number of inhabitants, and not regulated by the extent of the territory, or fertility of soil”3 Elliot’s, 243,“Each state will know, from its population, its proportion of any general tax” 3 Elliot’s, 244 ___ Mr. George Nicholas, during the ratification debates of our Constitution.

    Mr. Madison goes on to remark about Congress’s “general power of taxation” that, "they will be limited to fix the proportion of each State, and they must raise it in the most convenient and satisfactory manner to the public."3 Elliot, 255

    And if there is any confusion about the rule of apportionment intentionally designed to insure that the people of each state are to be taxed proportionately equal to their representation in Congress, Mr. PENDLETON says:

    “The apportionment of representation and taxation by the same scale is just; it removes the objection, that, while Virginia paid one sixth part of the expenses of the Union, she had no more weight in public counsels than Delaware, which paid but a very small portion”3 Elliot’s 41

    The fairtax intentionally circumvents the rule that the people of each state, whenever a general tax is laid by our federal government among the states, are obligated to contribute a share proportionately equal to their representation in Congress __ a rule demanding representation with a proportional financial obligation.


    JWK
    Apportionment applies to direct taxes which is income tax, property tax, taxes on assets, etc. Indirect taxes are sales taxes. Apportionment has nothing to do with indirect sales taxes under the US Constitution.

    This is the clause in the US Constitution that you're talking about:

    US Constitution

    Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3

    Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.
    Income and property taxes are direct taxes.

    DEFINITION of 'Direct Tax '

    A tax that is paid directly by an individual or organization to the imposing entity. A taxpayer pays a direct tax to a government for different purposes, including real property tax, personal property tax, income tax or taxes on assets. Direct taxes are different from indirect taxes, where the tax is levied on one entity, such as a seller, and paid by another, such a sales tax paid by the buyer in a retail setting.
    http://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/directtax.asp

    The US government has the clear right under Article 1, Section 8 to lay indirect taxes in any manner it sees fit so long as they are uniform throughout the United States.

    The FairTax is NOT a direct tax covered by Article 1, Section 2, it is a general indirect tax covered by Article 1, Section 8, and meets absolutely all original and current Constitutional requirements established by our Founders.

    Article 1, Section 8.

    The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
    https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei

    Apportionment only applies to direct taxes like income, property and asset taxes paid directly by the individual or entity to the taxing authority. Sales taxes are paid as part of the price of an item or service you purchase as a consumer and is paid to the seller who then pays them to the taxing authority. Sales taxes are voluntary, based on voluntary decision so to purchase an item or service. Direct taxes are mandated taxes on you because you work and earn or have assets or own real or personal property.

    The FairTax is not a hoax, it's the real deal to set Americans free from the tyranny of income taxes that were essentially banned by the US Constitution which is why an Amendment to allow them was required in 1913. It's time to get back to where the Founders actually wanted us to be and thought we were.
    A Nation Without Borders Is Not A Nation - Ronald Reagan
    Save America, Deport Congress! - Judy

    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts at https://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  2. #22
    MW
    MW is offline
    Senior Member MW's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    25,717
    You're absolutely right, johnwk, passing the unfair tax plan before repealing the 16th amendment is akin to placing the cart before the horse. It's a a bad idea and very risky. Actually there are many problem with the unfair tax. Your valid point is just one on a long list. Not to worry, the plan has been floating around for many years but never seems to get the traction it's supporters want or need (that's a good thing).

    "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing" ** Edmund Burke**

    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts athttps://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  3. #23
    Senior Member Judy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    55,883
    Quote Originally Posted by MW View Post
    You're absolutely right, johnwk, passing the unfair tax plan before repealing the 16th amendment is akin to placing the cart before the horse. It's a a bad idea and very risky. Actually there are many problem with the unfair tax. Your valid point is just one on a long list. Not to worry, the plan has been floating around for many years but never seems to get the traction it's supporters want or need (that's a good thing).
    That's funny! In 1913, they passed the income tax bill first, and then passed the 16th Amendment to make it legal. So now you want us to tell the States to repeal the 16th Amendment first rendering the income tax illegal, without having a sales tax bill to replace it. That's a sure fire way to shut down the federal government. How long would you be willing to wait for your checks while Congress is working out the details of an alternative plan?

    I think the way we're doing it is the right way. You pass the FairTax, then send the States the Amendment to repeal the 16th Amendment and some will ratify right away, others will wait and see how the FairTax works, meanwhile the States are all making money off the FairTax collection fee, and industries are moving home and investment is pouring in from offshore, Americans are getting their good jobs back, incomes are rising, poverty is declining, and those States that were slow to ratify will say "Oh my God, why didn't we do this years ago?" and the reason of course that they didn't is because of the deflections, misrepresentations, deceptions, misinformation and their own general ignorance of the entire topic and subject matter.

    So people can continue to whine and complain and put up with the consequences as our country sinks into irreparable bankruptcy and despair, or they can wake up and start taking actions to reverse the policies that have caused this disaster including chief among them, the elimination of the income tax and replacing it with a national retail sales tax on new goods and services. So far, the best and only such plan is the FairTax, HR 25 in the US House of Representatives and S 155 in the US Senate.
    A Nation Without Borders Is Not A Nation - Ronald Reagan
    Save America, Deport Congress! - Judy

    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts at https://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  4. #24
    MW
    MW is offline
    Senior Member MW's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    25,717
    Quote Originally Posted by Judy View Post
    That's funny! In 1913, they passed the income tax bill first, and then passed the 16th Amendment to make it legal. So now you want us to tell the States to repeal the 16th Amendment first rendering the income tax illegal, without having a sales tax bill to replace it. That's a sure fire way to shut down the federal government. How long would you be willing to wait for your checks while Congress is working out the details of an alternative plan?

    I think the way we're doing it is the right way. You pass the FairTax, then send the States the Amendment to repeal the 16th Amendment and some will ratify right away, others will wait and see how the FairTax works, meanwhile the States are all making money off the FairTax collection fee, and industries are moving home and investment is pouring in from offshore, Americans are getting their good jobs back, incomes are rising, poverty is declining, and those States that were slow to ratify will say "Oh my God, why didn't we do this years ago?" and the reason of course that they didn't is because of the deflections, misrepresentations, deceptions, misinformation and their own general ignorance of the entire topic and subject matter.

    So people can continue to whine and complain and put up with the consequences as our country sinks into irreparable bankruptcy and despair, or they can wake up and start taking actions to reverse the policies that have caused this disaster including chief among them, the elimination of the income tax and replacing it with a national retail sales tax on new goods and services. So far, the best and only such plan is the FairTax, HR 25 in the US House of Representatives and S 155 in the US Senate.
    So even you admit there is no guarantee the 16th Amendment would be repealed.

    "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing" ** Edmund Burke**

    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts athttps://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  5. #25
    Senior Member Judy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    55,883
    Quote Originally Posted by MW View Post
    So even you admit there is no guarantee the 16th Amendment would be repealed.
    Absolutely. There's no guarantee what the States will do. Why would there be? Each state is free to make their own decision to ratify the repeal or not. But failing to repeal the 16th Amendment has absolutely nothing to do with eliminating income based taxes and replacing them with a national retail sales tax. That is solely within the power of Congress to do, they can do it in 30 minutes, a 15 minute roll call vote in each Chamber, and a majority of the quorum in each Chamber, makes the income tax null and void as a matter of law, and the FairTax the law of the land.

    I'm like the FairTax designers who didn't tie the two together. The plan is that as soon as the FairTax is passed, a second legislation to repeal the 16th Amendment will be passed and sent to the States. But that repeal legislation may not pass Congress, because you need a 2/3 majority vote in each Chamber just to get the legislation through Congress before it can even be sent to the States. Since 1789, there have been 11,000 attempts to amend the US Constitution and only 27 have passed and been ratified, so the odds are not with a desire to repeal the 16th Amendment.

    Fortunately, a repeal of the 16th Amendment is not required to pass the FairTax, the FairTax legislation repeals the income tax as a matter of law and replaces it with the national retail sales tax. To pass the FairTax legislation which repeals the income tax by law only requires a simple majority vote in each Chamber. So I've never understood the obsession with repealing the 16th Amendment as a condition of repealing the income tax laws and replacing them with the FairTax through legislation. I mean it's possible and feasible once all the States are experiencing the many benefits of the FairTax, but even then, 2/3 vote in each Chamber of Congress and 3/4 of the States? Possible and likely, but not very likely or probable. Democrats will cling to their beloved income tax like matted hair on a stray cat.

    Congress has the power to pass the FairTax legislation, and there's really no excuse that it hasn't already been passed. The corruption in our Congress is a truth that is self-evident, and it will take a real leaders to pass it. Unfortunately, we don't have any in Congress. Maybe when Trump is President, he'll be the leader who can get it done. The legislation has 75 co-sponsors in the US House of Representatives alone, so it has more than ample support to pass the House, but it's been buried in the Ways and Means Committee for 16 years without debate or a floor vote. By comparison, Obama Care had 8 co-sponsors. But the Democrats had leadership so they pushed it through.

    Republicans aren't electing the right people to Congress. Something is very wrong with our process and the type of people we're sending to DC. Republicans in North Carolina sent Thom Tillis to DC as a US Senator, yet he not only supported and voted for this massive increase in H2B visas, he co-sponsored the Amendment. My county has 10% unemployment. So more H2B visa immigrants are going to be competing with these poor people who have been out of work for years. Tillis needs to be kicked to the curb his next election. What a disgrace. But he's Pro-Life and opposes gay marriage. Well, so what, Tom? Don't have an abortion and don't marry a gay person. What in the hell does your personal bigotry have to do with running the federal government and representing North Carolina? Well, obviously, not a damn thing.
    A Nation Without Borders Is Not A Nation - Ronald Reagan
    Save America, Deport Congress! - Judy

    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts at https://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  6. #26
    Senior Member johnwk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    2,484
    Quote Originally Posted by Judy View Post
    Apportionment applies to direct taxeswhich is income tax, property tax, taxes on assets, etc. Indirect taxes are salestaxes. Apportionment has nothing to do with indirect sales taxes under the USConstitution.



    Judy,

    You are correct that the rule of apportionment was intended to apply to any direct tax laid among the states. But the rule of apportionment was also intended to apply to any "general tax" laid among the states, especially if it were the primary means to raise a federal revenue! I gave you the quotes confirming this. If you choose to ignore what our founders stated that is your choice.


    Additionally, apportionment was also intended to apply if and when money was transferred from the federal government to the states! An example of this is found in the Act of Congress in June of 1836 in which all surplus revenue in excess of $ 5,000,000 was decided to be distributed among the states, and eventually a total of $28,000,000 was distributed among the states by the rule of apportionment in the nature of interest free loans to the states to be recalled if and when Congress decided to make such a recall.


    The rule of apportioning both representatives and any general tax laid among the states was part of the “Great Compromise” which led to the ratification of our Constitution.

    It should also be pointed out that the rule was not intended to apply to excise taxes which may be laid upon specifically chosen articles of consumption. Taxes on specifically chosen articles of consumption were intended to be uniform though out the United States. But the alleged “fairtax” does not lay a specific tax on a specifically chosen article of consumption. It creates what you call a “sales tax” which was unknown to our founders and is nowhere to be found in any historical records of the time. And it proposes to create Congress’ primary method to raise a federal revenue and cleverly removes that part of the Great Compromise under which the people of each state agreed to contribute a share into the federal government proportionately equal to their representation in Congress.

    I reject the fairtax because it violates the wisdom of our founding fathers under which they agreed that any general tax laid among the states would be apportioned so that each state’s contribution of a total sum being collected would be proportionately equal to its representation in Congress ___a rule based upon an idea commanding “representation with a proportional financial obligation”, or, one man, one vote, and one vote one dollar. Socialists love their one man one vote part of the rule of apportionment but fear with a passion one vote one dollar which is intentionally defeated under the alleged “fairtax”.

    In Federalist No. 54 we are reminded that our Constitution’s rule requiring an apportionment of both Representatives and any general tax laid among the states “…will have a very salutary effect.” Madison observes in this paper . . . “Were” the various States’ “share of representation alone to be governed by this rule, they would have an interest in exaggerating their inhabitants. Were the rule to decide their share of taxation alone, a contrary temptation would prevail. By extending the rule to both objects, the States will have opposite interests, which will control and balance each other, and produce the requisite impartiality.”

    Under the “fairtax” although the people of a particular state may contribute a larger share to fund the federal government than another state, they may not get a proportionately equal say in Congress relative to their contribution when their money is spent. Why do you reject the wisdom of the rule of apportionment being applied to the “fair tax” so the people of each state only pay a share proportionately equal to their representation in Congress?

    JWK

    "If the Constitution was ratified under the belief, sedulously propagated on all sides, that such protection was afforded [the rule of apportionment], would it not now be a fraud upon the whole people to give a different construction to its powers?"
    ___ Justice Story

  7. #27
    Senior Member johnwk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    2,484
    Quote Originally Posted by MW View Post
    You're absolutely right, johnwk, passing the unfair tax plan before repealing the 16th amendment is akin to placing the cart before the horse. It's a a bad idea and very risky. Actually there are many problem with the unfair tax. Your valid point is just one on a long list. Not to worry, the plan has been floating around for many years but never seems to get the traction it's supporters want or need (that's a good thing).

    What I have never been able to get a straight answer to from the advocates of the alleged fairtax is, why do they reject the "FAIR SHARE BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT" which would withdraw Congress' power to lay and collect any tax calculated from profits, gains and other lawfully earned incomes and return us to our Constitution's original tax plan and force Congress to once again raise its revenue by taxing consumption.

    I thought the proponents of the "fairtax" support taxing consumption. Why do they object to returning to our Constitution's ORIGINAL TAX PLAN which would accomplish their goal?

    In any event, at least there is universal agreement in wanting to withdraw Congress' power to lay and collect taxes calculated from "incomes" and compel Congress to raise its revenue by taxing consumption.


    JWK

    “Honest money and honest taxation, the Key to America’s future Prosperity“
    ___ from “ProsperityRestored by the State Rate Tax Plan”, no longer in print.


  8. #28
    Senior Member Judy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    55,883
    Quote Originally Posted by johnwk View Post
    What I have never been able to get a straight answer to from the advocates of the alleged fairtax is, why do they reject the "FAIR SHARE BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT" which would withdraw Congress' power to lay and collect any tax calculated from profits, gains and other lawfully earned incomes and return us to our Constitution's original tax plan and force Congress to once again raise its revenue by taxing consumption.

    I thought the proponents of the "fairtax" support taxing consumption. Why do they object to returning to our Constitution's ORIGINAL TAX PLAN which would accomplish their goal?

    In any event, at least there is universal agreement in wanting to withdraw Congress' power to lay and collect taxes calculated from "incomes" and compel Congress to raise its revenue by taxing consumption.


    JWK

    “Honest money and honest taxation, the Key to America’s future Prosperity“
    ___ from “ProsperityRestored by the State Rate Tax Plan”, no longer in print.

    The FairTax by definition is an indirect tax on consumption that's collected by the States who then forward the revenue once a month to the Federal Government. It's constitutional, no amendment to the Constitution is required. It exempts necessities with a Rebate up to the Household Consumption Allowance for all citizens and legal residents, regardless of income, so much for an adult, so much for a child. Business to business transactions, exports, education services and used goods are exempt. It funds both General Revenue and Social Security/Medicare. The rate is split with 14.91% for General Revenue and 8.09% earmarked for SS and Medicare.

    So why do you oppose it? Why do you call it a "hoax"?

    I can't imagine what problem the Founders would have with it. It's as perfect a piece of tax and economic development legislation as has ever been presented to the American People. It helps curb illegal immigration because illegal aliens are not eligible for the Rebate which makes it almost impossible for them to undercut American workers. It helps balance our trade because imports are taxed the same as domestic products, in addition to any tariffs they pay because tariffs, duties, imposts and excise taxes are still in place under the FairTax. Because businesses no longer pay income tax and are exempt from the FairTax, we are a tax haven so our manufacturers will come back home and our investors will bring their capital back to the US plus foreign companies will rush in to operate and invest in our new tax haven.

    It's a 360 degree improvement for our country, citizens, workers, earners, investors, businesses and taxpayers. Everybody wins except illegal aliens and importers. I mean what more can we and this one simple piece of legislation do for you?
    A Nation Without Borders Is Not A Nation - Ronald Reagan
    Save America, Deport Congress! - Judy

    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts at https://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  9. #29
    Senior Member johnwk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    2,484
    Quote Originally Posted by Judy View Post
    I can't imagine what problem the Founders would have with it.
    I have explained that in detail and provided documentation, and you chose to ignore it.


    JWK

  10. #30
    Senior Member Judy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    55,883
    Quote Originally Posted by johnwk View Post
    I have explained that in detail and provided documentation, and you chose to ignore it.


    JWK
    No, that is wrong. This thread is on page 3 because I haven't ignored anything you've posted. I addressed your explanations with the fact that you were claiming the FairTax was a direct tax covered by apportionment under Article 1, Section 2, when it's an indirect tax covered by Article 1, Section 8 and not subject to apportionment. You claim you support the State Rate Tax Plan suggested by someone in an article written in 1984, which is a consumption tax collected by the States. The FairTax was introduced into the US Congress in 1999, and is a consumption tax collected by the States and forwarded to the Feds. A national retail sales tax on goods and services like the FairTax is an indirect consumption tax by definition, is not subject to apportionment as if it were a direct tax, is perfectly constitutional, and restores liberty, privacy and the power of the purse to the people.

    So I think there is something about the FairTax that you're missing.

    Is it because you want Congress to tax specific articles of consumption instead of all new goods and services as proposed in your State Tax Rate Plan?

    From your State Tax Rate Plan article:

    By forcing Congress to select specific articles of consumption, as opposed to a blanket national sales tax, a system of taxation is achieved in which the general public may actively participate in the selection of the specific articles to be taxed, and, to what degree they will taxed.
    Is this the bone you have to pick with the FairTax? Lets address that.

    The FairTax is not a blanket national sales tax. It's a national retail sales tax on new goods and services at the final point of sale, taxed one time. Used goods and education services are exempt. Business to business sales are exempt. Exports are exempt. Charity giving is exempt, but charity retail sales and services are taxed the same as any other retail sale for money. Essentials and necessities are exempt through the Rebate for any citizen or legal resident who wants to sign up for it.

    Your plan that you call the "original tax plan" is the use of excise taxes on articles of consumption. There is very little difference between an excise tax and the FairTax. They are both indirect taxes on consumption, both on goods and services, both are included in the price and by definition and practicality are the same thing, the difference is a sales tax like the FairTax is an inclusive tax on the price, whereas most excise taxes are taxes on the unit, but excise taxes are not restricted to taxes on the unit.

    An excise is considered an indirect tax, meaning that the producer or seller who pays the tax to the government is expected to try to recover or shift the tax by raising the price paid by the buyer. Excises are typically imposed in addition to another indirect tax such as a sales tax or value added tax (VAT). In common terminology (but not necessarily in law), an excise is distinguished from a sales tax or VAT in three ways:

    an excise typically applies to a narrower range of products;
    an excise is typically heavier, accounting for a higher fraction of the retail price of the targeted products; and
    an excise is typically a per unit tax, costing a specific amount for a volume or unit of the item purchased, whereas a sales tax or VAT is an ad valorem tax and proportional to the price of the good.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excise

    Also, in your State Tax Rate Plan, it deals with another issue which is dealing with deficits and this rate plan according to your article is to raise the money annually from the states through a direct tax subject to apportionment to balance the budget every year. That's an entirely different and separate issue, an important issue, but not one that has anything to do with how we collect federal taxes throughout the year.

    But in the FairTax legislation there is a shortfall provision for Social Security and Medicare funding to ensure no shortfalls occur. This provision requires Congress to assess the revenue versus expenditures and raise the SS/Medicare rate which starts out at 8.09% to account for any deficits in that funding, which from time to time may be necessary due to inflation, benefits, recession or any number of issues that could arise. As to the General Revenue rate, they have the authority to raise or lower the 14.91% any time Congress deems fit to do so, but it is not required, whereas with the SS/Medicare portion, they are required by statute to raise the rates to ensure funding.

    Many people may not realize what's been happening in SS/Medicare. As more sign up and inflation raises benefits, one would think there would be payroll tax increases to account for this so SS/Medicare doesn't go broke or rob the Trust Fund. Yet, the last time Congress raised the payroll tax rates for SS/Medicare was in 1990, 25 years ago. They even reduced the rates for 2 years during the recession and in 2013 raised it slightly but only on high-income earners. Congress has intentionally tried to bankrupt Social Security and Medicare, then wants to force Americans to work longer and receive less benefits. This betrayal scheme would never happen under the FairTax, as a matter of law under the FairTax statute.

    In any event, there is nothing at all wrong with the FairTax. I realize there are income tax industry constituents who prefer the system the way it is. The income tax system runs deficits and has for 102 years, it bankrupts the country as we are now. which is the only inevitable outcome of such a system, it forces Americans into tax slavery and debt for benefits they don't receive, enables our Congress to manipulate our economy to suit its corporate and these days mostly foreign donors, and there is no end in sight with a system that hands over control of our government to globalists and socialists for the benefit of foreign interests and foreign governments, instead of our own citizens and national interest.

    When solutions like the FairTax sit buried in committee for 16 years unattended to while America burns, something has gone very wrong not only with our government setting the fires but the citizenry itself that not only refuses to lift a pail of water to put them out but cries "unfair" or "hoax" to resist the needed correction.
    Last edited by Judy; 12-18-2015 at 07:39 PM.
    A Nation Without Borders Is Not A Nation - Ronald Reagan
    Save America, Deport Congress! - Judy

    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts at https://eepurl.com/cktGTn

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Obama Signs Massive Aid Package to Pakistan
    By AirborneSapper7 in forum Other Topics News and Issues
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-15-2009, 11:09 PM
  2. What Did The Stimulous Package Pay For
    By NOamNASTY in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 07-13-2009, 12:29 PM
  3. AFL-CIO opposes aid package for Mexico
    By MyAmerica in forum Other Topics News and Issues
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 05-09-2008, 10:31 PM
  4. Specter has new Immigration Package
    By WesternMA in forum illegal immigration News Stories & Reports
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 07-27-2007, 09:52 AM
  5. KFI640,offers travel package for,DC March against Amnesty
    By mkfarnam in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 03-28-2007, 11:51 AM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •