| December 29, 2009
0 Comments

[UPDATE (December 29, 2009): the State has begun the process of selecting an administrator for the rebate program described in the post.] December 28's issued Comptroller Office of agency request for proposals (RFP) "targeted to companies that can act as implementation contractor" for the appliance rebate program. [Interested companies, such a contractor should the link (current December 29, 2009) to the page "energy efficiency appliance rebate program for stimulus grant program" Comptroller's Web site, the window on Government followed.]

Susan Combs, Texas Comptroller of public accounts, recently announced the, that Texas $23 million in federal stimulus funds discount program will use after a mail-in for consumers, the specific energy-efficient household appliances to buy a 10-day period April of next year. Here is the Comptroller press release announcing the program. Comptroller explained that the program be in the spring coincide with earth day, retailers time was up on appliances give State, a provider to manage discounts and enough time, consumers details offer the discount program. The press release also contains a link for a more detailed explanation of the program from the Agency State energy conservation Office.

Photo credit: © iStockphoto.com Sklemin Kirill

Total discounts seem pretty generous although some amounts purchased depending on the appliance type and energy efficiency of the model vary, such as $255-$ 640 for a water heater. Also, there are some limitations. For example, the discounts applies only to purchases of certified "Energy Star" refrigerators, freezers, room air conditioners, central air conditioners, heat pumps, water heaters, clothes washers and dishwashers. What's more, has the new units that replace same kind of old appliance works.

To the program even more attractive, recycling to consumers who buy an eligible appliance and recycling your old enter into a separate $75 discount.

So it is fund the federal stimulus good news for Texas consumers, the shiny new household appliances didn't over the holidays get. You have just to keep your old energy hogs, work for a few months until you recycled and replaced with energy-efficient and discount eligible models.

Finally, for consumers in the hope of "double dip", it does not appear that the April discount program with the energy star amounting to holiday in May that overlap where many of the same types of household appliances (the counterpart to 2008 which was sales tax holiday discussed in a previous post on this Web site labeled "Texas sales and use tax: Comptroller weekend has provided more details about the new sales tax holiday on Memorial Day for certain energy efficient products").

Home > Texas franchise tax > Texas' community banks pay less tax of franchise at the beginning of next year >, Texas tax reform > Texas' community banks pay less tax of franchise at the beginning of next year > | June 22nd, 2009
0 Comments

House Bill 4611, effective offers next year, an important advantage to small and medium-sized companies Texas banks - banks - often called Community under the revised franchise tax or "Margin Tax." In the last days of before recently ended legislative session enables credit institutions the Bill to pass, (i.e. banks), the gross proceeds from the sale of certain securities as part of their gross revenue for allocation of costs (instead of only the net proceeds) to treat purposes. Whether large or net income from securities, sales can be counted provision a Bank (or any other taxpayer) costs percentage is significant. This is because among subsection (e)(25) of the Comptroller of public accounts article 3.591 ("margin: breakdown"), proceeds from the sale of securities is at the location of the billing program is relative and, more importantly, "If securities are sold through an Exchange and the buyer can not be identified, then 7.9% of the revenue is a Texas entrance".

In other words, 92.1% of the revenue from the typical sale of securities on the stock exchange is outside of Texas, related so it is almost always advantageous to gross revenue, rather than only net profit from such a taxpayer sale distribution percentage calculation can include.

Image: Wikimedia Commons/public domain

House Bill 4611 is designed to resolve a problem by the Comptroller's interpretation of subsection (f) the tax code section 171.106 ("breakdown of margin to a State") arose. In subsection (e)(16) of rule 3.591 and explanations as the 2008 memorandum as document No. 200809240L agency STAR indexed database, how treated a Bank Securities for federal income tax purposes - and regardless of how it categorized those securities for purposes of financial reporting - determines whether gross or net proceeds from the sale of these securities in gross revenue sharing formula could be counted. The legislature's Bill analysis of language which has been declared the final (registered) version of the invoice;

[T] he comptroller's Office offers section 171.106(f) for securities and loans only applies to the a taxable entity dutifully or treatment under section 475(a)(1), internal revenue code or accounts for securities and loans under section 471, internal revenue code.

The Comptroller of the political position on section 171.106(f) is satisfiable trade easiest components of these companies from the large Multistate banks, due to the large security.  This large Multistate banks with Security Broker have all necessary procedures and guidelines to comply with section 475(a)(1) divisions, internal code needed revenue.

The Comptroller of the political position on section 171.106(f) will generate considerable administrative burden and potential regulatory issues for small to medium-sized banks, only shops in Texas, commonly recognized State community banks. These banks have usually not large trading security components, but sell securities and loans under its normal course of business. These banks with implementing costly and extensive management processes and policies to meet the comptroller's position face or suffer significantly higher franchise tax burdens (as a percentage of income) than their large Multistate counterparts.

The legislature's solution to this problem is subsection (f-1), section 171.106 of House Bill 4611 added. Under the new subsection purposes Division a bank is the gross proceeds from the sale of securities, be allowed, as part of their gross income the as "securities available for sale" or "Trading Securities" categorized under financial accounting standard (FAS) include no 115 as in effect on 1 January 2009. In other words, if a Bank Securities, thereby under FAS 115, categorized keeps it this securities 92.1% sold as from Alabama sources are handled by the gross proceeds, reducing this bank Texas distribution percentage and ultimately their franchise tax. So community keep banking and your tax advisor, this law change in mind in the preparation of the next year franchise tax reports.

One final note: Section 2 (providing that the laws originally only applies to a report due on or after the date of entry into force of the Bill) and section 3 (assuming that the legislation effective January 2010 is 1) House Bill 4611 together seem exclude reimbursement claims for banks that their securities sales reporting and paying their 2008 and 2009 franchise taxes used the net proceeds.

Home > practice and procedure > the Comptroller is on searching by service companies that were the cost incorrectly used method to calculate the margin sold >, Texas franchise tax > the Comptroller is on searching by service companies that were the cost incorrectly used method to calculate the margin sold >, Texas tax reform > the Comptroller is on searching by service companies that were the cost incorrectly used method to calculate the margin sold > | September 23, 2010
0 Comments

Audits of 2008 and 2009 reports filed under the revised franchise tax, the so-called "margin tax," "in full swing" for a while in the edition July 2010 Tax Policy News were the electronic tax return policy newsletter of the Texas Comptroller of public accounts (it is available the window on State Government agency visit). These tests are started a follow up of the Comptroller franchise tax "Desk audit" project, in 2009 and discussed in a previous post on this Web site labeled "upcoming franchise tax desk audits and more in the March issue of tax policy news."

As in the recent Tax Policy News-articles labeled "Service industry of entities generally qualify for the cost of goods sold deduction" explains, have revealed the latest audits that "…many wrong choice are entities in the service of industry cost of goods sold (COGS) deduction to use, the margin determine." A representative of the Comptroller Office in testimony before a August 17th provisional underlined consultation from Texas House ways and means Committee's Comptroller concern about the incorrect use of bulk storage consumption method. In fact the Comptroller representative of the Agency belief expressed, that such erroneous reporting a major reason why was the revised franchise tax of significantly less revenue for the years 2008 and 2009 report expected produced. As a result, it is not surprising to learn that the Comptroller audit process to generate is carefully provided service industry tax reports in an attempt to additional tax by.

What's more, produces a particularly hard result for many companies that incorrectly uses the COGS method for calculating the margin tested during these audits, since you can now switch to the compensation method may not (a taxable entity can only choose between the bulk storage consumption and compensation methods for calculating the margin at the time when a tax report is originally stored). That is how the Tax Policy News-article pointed out,

If an entity that selected the cost of the sold deduction to use this method for earlier years reports were eligible, the entity must change the reports. The compensation deduction but available reports for the previous years. Choice language in tax code section 171.101(d) allows no change in the method of computing margin at the cost of goods sold or compensation deduction after the due date of the report.

These entities that elected the costs were originally, to use sold method must change and use the 70 percent method to determine margin or revenue is not more than $10 million, may use the E-Z computation to determine tax due. E Z computation a cost of goods sold or compensation does not allow deduction in computing margin but instead apply a lower rate of 0.575 percent directly to dispositive total revenue.

In other words, if an entity the COGS method chosen, the margin on its original 2008 or his 2009 calculate report and should not, it must now use the "70% of the revenue method" (or, if authorized "E-Z Computation" method). This will almost certainly result in a higher tax as if the entity now only select, could the compensation method for the tested years use. This is another example of the Comptroller's strict interpretation of the calculation methods and options under the revised franchise tax described in the recent post on this site labeled "Select the 70% of revenue method of calculating the margin is irrevocable for the year."

| October 22, 2010
0 Comments

The Dallas Morning News reported that the Texas Comptroller of public accounts reviewed Amazon.com $ 269 million in uncollected Texas sales tax in a copyrighted story on its Web site. To find the whole story, here is a link to the newspaper Web site home page.

The Texas State and local tax law blog will provide more details about the assessment if they are publicly available.

| July 10, 2009
0 Comments

Orders of the day from the Supreme Court of Texas taxpayers denied petitions for review in two tax cases. The first denial-of-war in one case, sales Reynolds metals company v. Combs, et al., originally from the third Court of appeals decided February 4th and discussed on this site in a post labeled "Legislative acceptance doctrine will defeat not always a Comptroller policy." The Court later moved its original opinion and replaced its memorandum opinion on the hearing April 8th (accessible through the link above).

The second denied request for review was decided in an ad valorem (property tax case, ICAN Company Inc., et al., v. Williamson County appraisal district, et al., from the third Court of appeals. Opinion of the Court of Auditors to the issued (accessible from the link) on April 17th was and was discussed in a previous post "the lease a city owned hangar is taxable if the hangar is used to store aircraft".

The Texas Supreme Court's denial-of check is usually the last stop for State and local tax cases in Texas. Of course, there is always the possibility that the Supreme Court of Texas will change his mind on a motion of censure for case or that of the United States Supreme Court to one or two cases will decide. Extremely long shots are, however, so advise companies and their taxes with an interest in both cases should assume that you are now final.

James Maule has observed that some Congress of eartags benefactor who peppered are:

The practice of opposing peppered, while the share annoyed some members of Congress has. The best deal in this story reported among others comes from Senate majority leader Harry Reid. Reid said that some of those who to speak out "are people who have more crowded than others against peppered." "If in a dictionary and found hypocrites went to H, would be among the people for eartags to ask but vote against you."

Senator Dick Durbin, the ear tags inserted nearly $100 million in the legislation, is reported to have said, "many of the same senators who criticize... peppered are peppered have in the account." This is the height of hypocrisy to stand up and demand an ear tag and then fold your arms and pious announce, "I'm against peppered." "

Currently pending Congressional spending are invoices, the at least $8 billion in peppered contain. So much for the TAM-TAM's surrounded announcement by the Republicans, they were peppered ban last month. 38 You in pending legislation has Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, a supporter of the ban on ear tags;. Senators John Thune and John Cornyn, attacked the legislation, which combined spending bills but peppered on the defensive with questions about the 17 had placed the two of you in the legislation. Thune replied: "I support this law to support these projects [funded by ear tags] but I."

Use this type of inconsistency, a gentler Word as hypocrisy, the deficit problems cut to underscores the madness of the opposition to budget deficit growth with support for tax combined extensions that help budget deficits, justified by claims that spending is reduced all thrown us from members who continue to solve to engage in the ear tag game.

I do not agree with Reid, Durbin and Maule. It is peppered hypocritical nor towards a total ban on while you benefit from earmarks while legally inconsistent.

Let me illustrate with a simple example:

When a Congressman hits that limit the speed on I-95 to be reduced to 55 miles per hour and for 70 miles per hour, he acts not hypocritical. His ride at the higher limit which speed is not hypocritical is because he does not propose that reduce the speed only for him, but rather that it be reduced for everyone. If on the other hand, the law changed and the maximum speed reduced to 55 and he continued to drive at 70, then he would be a hypocrite.¹

Allow Similarly, legislators, to favour a law, the ear tags; all congressmen not crowded when inserting their own invoices will be not necessarily hypocritical. If you are not back to bring the single for your constituents, are set on big political disadvantage.

Footnote:

I have repeatedly called for technology¹ to be fair, for these high net worth individuals on the left who have publicly clueless, increasing taxes on the rich to put your money where their mouths are and voluntarily more taxes. Left has countered with the same argument I do here: whether this wealthy Pro Taxers are not proposing a policy only your taxes but rather a increase, which will increase the taxes of all high-income people. You have a point.

Square Maule then says that the opposition to peppered only on principle (emphasis added is):

Earmarks $8 billion, although apparently represents a huge amount of money to most of us, something in the order of one quarter of one percent of the annual federal budget. I doubt there is already a drop in the bucket. It is rather a grain of sand at the beach. So what's the big deal? The great thing is principle. The great thing is the nefarious effects on the economy of a way of thinking, the tax extensions and peppered cut while complaining about budget deficits and accepted federal spending.

When no clear direction is submitted, are those who run end up scattered and lost. This is what will? Perhaps. Is this what do Americans? I hope not. But it's what we always have been and we continue to be what, until enough people understand what happened and strengthen opposition.

, Increased deficits we continue for as long as people on the left side as Professor right proposal of Maule, discount of each budget cut actually is page on the grounds that it is only "a drop in the bucket."

The prohibition of ear tags as spending cut action is more than principle, Mr Maule, because a bucket full, receives after enough drop into fall.

A named gentlemen Borden Bradley t. told his daughter - we call their little Borden - a tax parable that he called miss the Prince and the pauper who believes he proves that the rich from the politicians have purchased, to less than their fair share of taxes (added highlighting) to pay:

"So, Dad, the Prince of less tax paid and caused the beggars to pay, although made less money?"asked my daughter.

"Yes," I said. "The Prince was able to influence the law and reduce tax, rent its taxes."

"But the beggars couldn't" interrupted.

"Right."

", Which is apparently fair not," she said. Then asked: "Princes and beggars in America we?"

"Most people in America are more like the beggar." I replied. "You have income from work, which in General is taxed." "A small percentage of people are however, as the Prince, and have a lot of your investment income that is taxed or not at all."

"The Prince has to invest the money he would the beggars to benefit as he said,?", asked you.

"I don't think so", I replied.

"Why not the Supreme Governor could spend only less?" asked me.

"The head less spent, he would have to cut services." At some point, the Government can no longer cut services. Also of less expenditure would not make gerechteren taxes. "

Bradley Borden is yet another soak the rich true believers not to read and understand a basic tax diagram.¹

I hate your Daddy worship bubble, little Miss burst flanges, but the truth is that (your Daddy calls the Princes EM) pay about 60% of all of the top 5% income earners in America taxes and the bottom 50% (the beggar) pay less than 5% of all the taxes.

See my blog post entitled, the share of taxes paid increased during the Bush tax cut years by the rich.

In good class warfare form gives Mr. Borden us then the mandatory Maulian disbelief at how all think mid-range or poor person may not seize more of the wealth which range from (emphasis added) could encourage:

Finally, the difficult question asked [my daughter]:

"When so many Americans like the beggars are and might pay less money if everyone paid a fair share, say why more people Congress tax law change?"

This is an excellent question for which I have no answer.

What really here says Borden is that he did not understand, why agree to a majority of people will not, trample take caused to the rights of a minority of the population to some of their wealth. It is a telling if not surprisingly, approval of someone who belongs to an ideological cadre made their living from defending the rights of minorities.

Well, I have an answer for little Miss Borden:

Americans do not believe in class warfare as your dad, because they understand and appreciate the dangers of a Government that the wealth of the few haves to it, the many seized have nots. In other words, the beggars are smart enough to know that Stalinism was tried before and failed.

The lesson little Miss Borden should learn but is not, from her dad's adorable little parable is to not believe everything, your dad says it.

Footnotes:

¹  Below is a chart from the tax Foundation, the percent of the federal income tax, by each income group paid are listed. Made as Nick Gillespie says, "whatever else you want to say about the Bush tax rates you the wealthy pony up more of the whole."

Percent of the federal income tax paid by each group

Year top 01 top 1% of top 5% 5-10% top 10 10-25% top 25 25 50 top 50% bot 50%

(Hat tip: Paul Caron)

Andrew Sullivan of the daily dish posted today this ABC News/WaPo survey:

 

Andrew tells us, what does this all mean Kevin Drum thinks the Mother Jones:

Why are more people in favor of an estate cut taxes you will never see, but to favor of a Lohnsummensteuer intersected set instant money in your own pocket so many?

Possible answers: (a) people don't really understand that cut pay and payroll means taxes to you, (c) fantastic overestimate an immediate increase in their take home pay, (b) people pay and payroll taxes so heavily with social security solvency assign do not want people as are likely to see, a $5 million estate when you die (d) many people have a strong instinctive view, the people on their wealth for your children, no matter how much it is, (e) people are just confused about all this stuff and it is hopeless to try to figure out what really is going to pass should be.

Mr drum I give credit for at least including its five possible answers an option (d), which not offend the intelligence of the majority.

But I have a (f):

People are against high taxes of whatsoever because you know that higher taxes reduce the chances that Congress ever seriously be entertained spending cuts. And the failure cut spending means a growing Government.

And a (g):

People realize that the federal bureaucracy is inefficient and wasteful and therefore believe that it is foolish to the Government give a raise, if it the money that there already been carelessly has wasted.

Liberals make regular the cynical assumption that conservative support only policies that you will be personally and directly benefit. Therefore, if a conservative is a measure which allegedly benefited him against the links to the conclusion that he does not really understand you it.¹

I don't know maybe you're only project. I know however, that decisions (f) and (g) only possibilities of someone had made this assumption could have been.

Footnotes:

Technology¹ blogger and tax you law professor James Maule is one of the worst offenders of this type of initial analysis bias. He can not simply understand how informed and intelligent middle-class American confiscatory taxation upper-class Americans could oppose. The irony is, of course, while Mr Maule claims someone else - be self-less because he is willing to support measures which will have adverse effects on him if these policies benefit the country as a whole, he could not imagine, especially a conservative or a Republican - will be similarly motivated.

Tags: Policy of taxation · Tax policy

"Capital is dead work that lives only by sucking of living labour, vampire-like, and the more lives the more work it sucks."

I have reviewed in this article and I'm strange with the author, but it is still awfully interesting.

Tim Worstall write for adamsmith.org says that the taxation of capital will be reduced not inequality of income because rich people today rich to get by investing, but by 'Investment' in her own work:

Maybe our friends lefty right..., that we should capital tax, the things in the possession and the rich, more highly held social reasons?

Well, no, it has a huge underlying change in what where deserve since the gilded age. It was true (these are Canadian figures but much the same numbers for USA and UK), that the majority of the upper income from income from capital, and also came the majority of the capital was result to top income of peeps.

That's not necessarily true today at all.

Occurs by far the majority of upper income from labour income these days. And the majority of the investment income is the income scale to those below: Canada, 50% of the investment income went to workers with an income of less than $60,000 per year. It is simply not true (as it was probably a century ago), those get it with high income from interest and dividends, you make everything to have.

To increase capital taxation only going to reduce inequality of incomes for the top earners are always your income isn't from their work, our work.

As so often, we find our lefty friends who fight the battles of a century ago. Since it is not true that high income are a result of capital concentration then tax returns to capital, to either go reduce high incomes and income inequality.

If Worstall is correct and I believe he is – increasing taxes on capital gains and dividends will do little reducing of inequality of incomes in the United States and can even increase it.

Even better, if capital accumulation no longer is the owning and the have nots, then what is a Marxist to do?

Now, I know one thing, the he's not: give, that rich not enough because you control the levers of the capital. After all, if the recording he was made a Marxist no longer and he would be having to admit always closer to the equally unfathomable:, the rich their disproportionate wealth through one or a combination of the following deserve:

(a) work harder

work (intelligent b)

God forbid.

Footnotes:

Technology¹ America is no longer a capital intensive, production-based society, but rather a service economy. This means work, not capital. As a result, it is rich to get through education of human capital, but rather work useful if Worstall says that rich no longer. The only remaining question is "whose work?" Think about the super-rich in America? Top flight doctors, elite lawyers, professional athletes and entertainers. You all make their wealth largely due to one of their own work. In short, the rich are not rich in America because you have stockpiled the means of production. They are rich, because you deserve it.

"Although suppressed, growing inequalities;" only the man under the average economic ability desires equality; "those outstanding ability conscious desire freedom, and at the end of outstanding ability has its way."

-Will Durant-

Yesterday in Panama City opened a certified Wackjob named clay Duke fire on six school board members he accused, firing his school teacher wife. Fortunately, he was about as good a shot as the Schofield kid and missed you all. He turned the gun on himself later itself and, again, fortunately to hit his target:

The police say that it had planned for some time to do ex-convict named stopped a Florida School Board at gunpoint. Panama City says Tuesday's police chief John van Etten was date from a calendar in the 56-year-old clay Duke North of Panama City trailer was found circled. Board members shot Duke even after firing at school during a session on Tuesday. Nobody was hurt.

Before opening fire, he painted a red V on a wall and talked about his wife, who is thrown. Officials say worked for the schools, but it was not clear whether you resigned or had dismissed or what was your job. Apparently, she lived with her mother in a nearby city. Van Etten says the shooting was not "spur of the moment."

The police found also anti-Government Paraphanelia in Duke's House.

We have read and written about the bratty children rioted in London, because their tuition fees by the taxpayer funded was to increase. We have read about the spoiled French received violent in Paris, because the Government was going to raise the retirement age of 62. And we have read wild mob about of entitled Greeks, the cars on fire and damaged buildings set because their nanny State Government from money ran and announced that it would have to stop its handout programmes.

But we Americans are individualists. We need no stinkin' group to tell us when are not violent. Take our standards, we have our tantra alone.

So motivated what Mr Herzog to try to kill the School Board? Was it right talk radio? Glenn Beck, perhaps? Maybe it was to this crazy tea party goers running always telling everyone how bad is Government?

Well, it turns out, it was none of the above even intended, threw the AP in the mandatory Zinger about the police, the search for "anti-Government utensils" in Duke's House.

See what you say the AP that Mr Herzog rich hated and kept, and the system which he thought you controlled, is responsible for his wife firing (and probably for any other bad and unfortunate thing, it ever in his life short and disturbed occurred).¹

The Huffington Post has more on what have eaten Duke can (emphasis is mine):

Entries from December 7 and 8 are only dated on a Facebook page under his name. The page displays a cryptic message "about me" section.

"My Testament: some people (the State-funded media) to say I was evil, a monster (V)... No.... I was only in a country where the wealthy manipulate, use, abuse and economically to enslave 95 percent of the population born poor." Rich Republicans, Democrats... same same... rich... you alternately cupping us... our few dollars... pyramiding wealth for themselves. "

His Facebook profile PIC is the Red V icon he painted over during the session on the wall and its page contains photos from the film "V for Vendetta," that was a graphic novel.

Citing Billionaire Warren Buffett said in 2006 New York Times: "it is all right class warfare, but it is my class, the rich class that makes war and we are winning."

Make the blood vessels that would become bulging of the forehead of Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow and Ed Schulz, Duke's Facebook page, anti-Government comment of Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh say, rather than an anti-rich comment by Mr. Buffett had cited?  Have doubts that the mainstream media will call a cautionary tale about the evils of conservative anti Governmentism Duke's outbreak would?

I do not.

Footnotes:

Blame the soak the rich amount technology¹ I for what Duke did yesterday? Absolutely not. The only person that is responsible for what is Duke Duke itself. But I doubt for even a nanosecond, Duke had been, a tea party type would have blamed the anti-Government set the left, and probably conservatives in General for what happened. No doubt at all.

Error in deserializing body of reply message for operation 'Translate'. The maximum string content length quota (8192) has been exceeded while reading XML data. This quota may be increased by changing the MaxStringContentLength property on the XmlDictionaryReaderQuotas object used when creating the XML reader. Line 1, position 9243.
Error in deserializing body of reply message for operation 'Translate'. The maximum string content length quota (8192) has been exceeded while reading XML data. This quota may be increased by changing the MaxStringContentLength property on the XmlDictionaryReaderQuotas object used when creating the XML reader. Line 1, position 9490.

“I’ll get you my pretty, and your little dog, too.”

- Wicked Witch of the West -

Feminist broom-pilot Wendy Murphy says that the rape charges against Wikileaks founder Julian Assange are weak and hurt true victims of rape (emphasis added):

As a former sex crimes prosecutor, I’m the last person you might expect to come to the defense of the unsavory WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange. But the charges that now have him sitting in a British prison reek of opportunism and political expediency, and that does women around the world no good.

That doesn’t mean that I think the two women who’ve accused him of committing sexual offenses last August are lying. One woman said she had consensual sex with Assange, but that the condom broke and he used his body weight to hold her down, presumably to complete the act.

She hosted a party for him the next evening.

A few days later, Assange had sex with another woman—allegedly while she was asleep—also without wearing a condom. Both women reportedly acknowledged that they freely chose to engage in sex acts with Assange—but that some of his conduct was nonconsensual.

As a general matter, assuming the allegations are true, Assange should be punished because he violated the women’s fundamental right to personal autonomy and bodily integrity by acting without their “knowing, intelligent and voluntary” consent.

For the love of God, Elmira, isn’t screwing someone while they’re asleep the very definition of rape?¹

And this Wendy Murphy – the one who only assumes Assange’s accusers are telling the truth – is the same Wendy Murphy who is renowned for her repeated public condemnation of the clearly innocent Duke Lacrosse players and who once stated on the MSNBC news show The Situation that women never lie about rape:

“I never, ever met a false rape claim, by the way. My own statistics speak to the truth.”

Then the arbiter of all things consensual and sexual shows her true colors when she says (again, the emphasis is mine),

In another context, I might support these claims as legitimate sex crimes charges simply to get the message out more clearly in this country that nobody should impose their body parts onto or inside the body of another person without their knowing, intelligent and voluntary consent.

So Wendy Murphy believes we should criminally prosecute men wrongly accused of rape just to “get the message out.” Well, I suppose this explains why she continues to support the condemnation of the Duke LaCrosse players and continues to publicly defend their disbarred rogue prosecutor, Michael Nifong.

Wendy Murphy is a bad and dangerous person and if you don’t believe me just listen to Radley Balko of Reason (emphasis added):

Murphy’s continuing saturation of the cable news airwaves is nauseating. Her punditry career should have ended with the Duke lacrosse case, when she appeared all over cable news to defend Nifong and to damn the falsely accused lacrosse players, first prematurely, then even as it became clear to the rest of the world that they were innocent. (As late as last year Murphy was still griping about the lacrosse case).

K.C. Johnson wrote of Murphy at the time,

“In addition to the outrageous quotes highlighted above, on at least 18 occasions over the past nine months, Murphy has made demonstrably untrue statements. She also has engaged in a pattern of wholly unfounded speculation and has routinely denigrated due process.”

Murphy never apologized for repeatedly slandering the Duke players. Yet her punditry career took off. She was rewarded with a book contract and dozens more TV appearances.

William Anderson noted earlier this year that Murphy was recently invited onto the Today show to vouch for Catoosa County, Georgia’s shameful sex abuse persecution of Tonya Craft.

(Craft was acquitted on all counts.)

In a 2007 interview with the American Journalism Review, here’s how Murphy justified going on TV to publicly convict potentially innocent people in spite of the evidence against them:

“Lots of folks who voiced the prosecution position in the beginning [of the Duke case] gave up because they faced a lot of criticism, and that’s never my style.” She notes that she’s invited on cable shows to argue for a particular side. “You have to appreciate my role as a pundit is to draw inferences and make arguments on behalf of the side which I’m assigned,” she says. “So of course it’s going to sound like I’m arguing in favor of ‘guilty.‘ That’s the opposite of what the defense pundit is doing, which is arguing that they’re innocent.”

It’s all theater, you see. She’s just playing a part. It’s fine if she slanders some people, ruins some reputations, spouts flat falsehoods, and generally dumbs down the public discourse. Because it’s just entertainment. It’s what pundits do.

Ms. Murphy wants us to believe that she’s merely a law whore whose opinions can be bought. It is clear to me, however, that she’s trying to distance herself from some of the outrageous and immoral allegations she has publicly made against innocent young men.

So, when she’s says she’s merely making an argument on behalf of the side to which she is assigned by the network, she’s lying through her teeth.

Television pundits like Murphy are asked to appear on air because of their views. They aren’t asked to mold their views so they can get on television. In other words, when NBC needs a pundit to present the prosecution’s point of view it looks for one who already holds that point of view.

Make no mistake about it, Murphy gets her T.V. gigs because of her well-known legal positions. She doesn’t develop her position after she gets the T.V. gig. This is why you never see Murphy taking a defense position on air and why her written material always conforms with what she says on air.

These are Wendy Murphy’s views, people, and she is indeed a dangerous person.²

Footnotes:

¹  I don’t know whether Assange did anything wrong in this case, but I do know that it’s a facially much stronger case than the one brought by prosecutor Michael Nifong against three white Duke Lacross players in 2006, which prosecution Wendy Murphy publicly and stridently supported. (She’s claimed, without a shred of evidence, that the young men “ripped open the girl’s vagina.”)

²  For you mothers-of-sons out there who are still not convinced that Murphy is a loose cannon, consider that she is on record saying that rape cases are easy to prosecute:

There’s nothing inherently difficult about prosecuting rape. It is, in fact, the easiest and least expensive crime to investigate and prosecute. The victim takes the stand and says she was forced to have sex without h er consent. If the jurors believe her beyond a reasonable doubt, they vote guilty. If not, they vote not guilty.

In other words, Murphy believes that a mere accusation without a single shred of corroborating evidence is enough for a prosecutor to bring an aggravated rape charge against a man who has no criminal record. Couple this with her wacky contention that women never lie about rape and you really don’t need a trial at all. All you have to do is have the woman identify her rapist and proceed to sentencing.

If we extended Murphy’s irresponsible and downright loony theory to non-sexual violence cases, it would mean that I could file a police report against a neighbor alleging that he broke into my house and stole my laptop and the prosecutor would allow the case to go to trial and the jury decide his guilt based solely on my testimony.

And Wendy Murphy claims to be a champion of due process and the Bill of Rights?

With views like these Wendy Murphy has disqualified herself from ever holding a prosecutorial position in America again. In fact, she shouldn’t even be permitted to clean the latrine of a prosecutor’s office.

She’s nuttier than a Snickers bar and twice as dangerous to the national health.

If we want to American staff start company to invest in America and we should start, the highest not see through income tax rate to the federal companies in the world.

Dan Mitchell Cato says now that Japan is exactly its corporate income tax rate of 5 cut has, where America can be found:

Japan has announced that it will cut its corporate income tax rate by five percentage points. This America with the highest corporate was the global laggard on corporate tax reform, Japan and the United States rate under 34 wealthy Nations, the Organisation for economic cooperation and development leaves.

Then, for those a little slow on the record, he says us, why this is a bad thing:

This is not a good position for us to be. Most of the competition from US companies face comes from company headquartered in other OECD countries. America competes with other OECD countries as a location for investment. Our high corporate tax rate scared investments in new plants, makes it difficult to compete for U.S. companies in foreign markets and provides strong incentives for companies avoid and escape control.

The diagram shows the KPMG data for 2010 on statutory corporate tax rates in the OECD, but I also in the new lower price for Japan. Reform of the Japanese, the average rate in the OECD will be 25.6 percent.

This means that it is 56 percent higher than the average wealthier nation at the 40 percent U.S. rate.

Finally, he is President Obama a recommendation:

Most tax experts agree that the U.S. corporate tax rate is cutting a high priority, and President of Obama's financial year the Commission approved the idea. If the President to the economy will fire from all cylinders and generate a new pragmatic and centrist image for himself-he should charge to delete the corporate rate by at least 20 percent.

State level taxes on top a federal corporate rate of 20 percent would America above the OECD average and all these companies are setting a good reason sitting on piles of cash to start investing again to give.

Daniel j. Mitchell Cato like the tax business for the obvious reason:

The reason there much like and like the tax deal between President Obama and-Kongresses Guide. On the positive side we dodge a big tax increase for the next two years. We replace a goofy and ineffective "Work rewarding make" tax credit with a supply-side oriented reducing wage and payroll tax rate (only for year a, so it probably not much economic benefits will be).

And for the not so obvious reason:

But here's a bit of good news that has received much attention. The tax deal ends "build America bonds" tax preference, was one of the most devastating provisions of Obama of so-called stimulus. Here is an excerpt from a Bloomberg report.

Senate Democrats secure the subsidy which has helped finance bridges, roads and other public works, it fell added shortly in a bid to get, an invoice, the extension of the 2001 and 2003 income tax cuts. A failure was the latest efforts to build America program 31.12 to keep alive behind its scheduled end. …While Obama and Democrats to extend have supported it, you have run into opposition from Republican critical of the stimulus package. Extensions passed twice the Democratic-controlled House only to stall in the Senate, where the Republican minority sufficiently powered is to block legislation. The Government pays the interest costs on build America bonds 35. …The proponents are State and local governments, U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the construction industry representatives under the program.

Build America bonds are a backdoor handout for wasteful State and local governments so that more money to lend, while some of the resulting interest costs on the Federal Government moved.

But States are already in deep trouble because of too much spending and debt, to encourage more spending, and debt with federal tax was a very bizarre policy distortions.

In addition the directive the economy by creating a incentive for investors harm State and local governments rather than private sector Investments.That's a very bad idea, unless you think somehow (in spite of all the evidence) that it is wise to the public sector at the expense to make greater private sector.

In one fell swoop, build America bonds increase the load on the Federal Government, encourages a greater burden of the State and local government and drained resources from the productive sector of the economy.

That is stupid of Washington standards. So what we think of the overall package about, let us enjoy the death of this destructive provision.

Also dislikes Mitchell the tax business for the obvious reason:

On the negative side, the business expanded unemployment benefits, which has the perverse effects of the unemployment subsidy. The deal is filled with all kinds of corrupt governing various stakeholders such as ethanol producers.

And for the not so obvious reason:

Then there are provisions like the 35 percent death tax. Is this bad news because there is an increase of zero percent this year? Or there is good news because it much lower than the 55% rate effective at the beginning of next year was planned? This is difficult to answer, even though I know the correct rate of 0 (zero).

As regards the extension of unemployment benefits, the Democrats managed to what do you often: fashion a measure which appears on its face, compassionate, generous and care, but in reality is bad for the intended benefactors and the country as a whole.¹

It is true. Extending unemployment benefits incentivizes unemployment and does nothing to create jobs. If to spend felt the Democrats taxpayer money to help unemployed forced would have done better, currently unemployed Americans give everyone that gets a job and considers it a $5,000 a year-tax reduction.

Reward employment, not unemployment.

Duh!

Footnotes:

Technology¹ Bill Clinton moved right reform America's social system. It was one of the best pieces of legislation in recent years 5o and effectively killed the word "Welfare" and replace it with the word "Workfare." Should be required every able-bodied American citizen currently receiving unemployment benefits to its services to the Government by volunteers. It is a crime, 10% of Floridians are always taxpayer money for sitting on your sofa while only a few meters outside their homes, streets with bedding are filled.

Alternatively we should offer instead of allocating "unemployment" citizens, short-term employment. This will make you feel better about yourself because you will get you at least partially, worthy of support. We have not of learned now that we do not not only you money * and when we do, we run of the entitled risk a revolt as we have seen, in Greece, France and England to create.

* Even moderately responsible parents know enough to your tasks for your certificates do children and parents criminally like should be arrested the for unleashing on society by Charlie Sheen, Paris Hilton and Lindsay Lohan.

Error in deserializing body of reply message for operation 'Translate'. The maximum string content length quota (8192) has been exceeded while reading XML data. This quota may be increased by changing the MaxStringContentLength property on the XmlDictionaryReaderQuotas object used when creating the XML reader. Line 1, position 9127

"He can take his 'n and beat your' n then take your'n and beat his'n."

-Houston Oilers coach bum Phillips on Miami Dolphins' coach Don Shula-.

One L at the University of Miami School of law are required to participate in a moot court exercise where they make an argument for the appellant and then switch sides and make a counter argument for the Todd white. The pedagogical goal of the exercise is to get Carlyle lawyers to understand the necessity of knowing the strengths and weaknesses of opposing arguments.

So, since I have already f.d.a. ad infinitum that the the Bush tax cuts should be extended for everyone, not just the middle class, today I will argue the other side: namely, that the Bush tax cuts should be allowed to expire for taxpayers who earn more than $250,000 a year.

Wish me luck.

The rich will not spend their tax savings

The primary reason for extending the Bush tax cuts for the middle class is to stimulate spending and jump start the economy. The middle class will use their tax savings on necessities and, therefore, their tax cuts will have the stimulus effect looked for. The rich, on the other hand, do not need a tax cut in order to pay for their necessities and, therefore, are less likely to spend their tax savings in a manner that will stimulate the economy.

Listen to Timothy Homan of Bloomberg:

Tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 under President George W. Bush were followed by increases in the saving rate among the rich, according to data from Moody's Analytics Inc. when taxes were raised under Bill Clinton, the saving rate fell.

The findings may weaken arguments by Republicans and Democrats in Congress who some say allowing the Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans to lapse them to reduce will their spending promptly, harming the economy. President Barack Obama wants to extend the cuts for individuals earning less than $200,000 and couples earning less than $250,000 while ending them for those who earn more.

"I would continued to wonder how much the tax cut actually influences spending behavior," said Chris Cornell on economist who mined government reports back to 1989 for West Chester, Pennsylvania-based Moody's analytics. "Spending by the top 5 percent of households seems much more closely tied to business cycle issues than it does to tax-cut issues."

The Moody's research covering couples earning more than $210,000 found that spending by the wealthy is more likely to be influenced by the ups and downs of the stock market than changes in income-tax rates.

In short, the benefits of extending the tax cuts for the rich are less than the costs of doing so.

The wealth gap will increase

The gap between the haves and the have nots has nearly tripled in the last 30 years. The rich have seen their incomes sku rocket while the middle class have experienced only moderate increases. Democratic societies operate best when large discrepancies of wealth are avoided. When there is disparate wealth there is disparate influence (or at least the appearance of it) which causes those at the bottom to loose faith in the system.

Listen to Timothy Noah of slate:

[I] ncome inequality is a topic of huge importance to American society and therefore a subject of large and growing interest to a host of economists, political scientists, and other wonky types. Except for a few libertarian outliers (whose views we'll examine later), these experts agree that the country's growing income inequality is deeply worrying. Even Alan Greenspan, the former Federal Reserve Board chairman and onetime Ayn Rand acolyte, has registered concern. "This is not the type of thing which a democratic society a capitalist democratic society can really accept without addressing," Greenspan saidin 2005. Greenspan's Republican-appointed successor, Ben Bernanke, has so fretted about income inequality.

Extending the Bush tax cuts for the rich as well as the middle-class will increase the wealth gap even further because in a progressive tax system across the board tax cuts have a regressive effect in that those in the higher tax brackets will experience greater tax savings.

The deficit will increase

Extending the Bush tax cuts to those making more than $250,000 per year increase the deficiency will by $700 billion. If the cutting the taxes of rich people were guaranteed to stimulate the economy and result in job creation, then, perhaps, it would be worth the cost of increasing the deficiency. But, as discussed above, since it is unlikely that tax cuts for the rich will have any significant stimulus effect we would have substantially increased the deficiency for little or no return.

Here's what Isabel Sawhill of Brookings wrote back in 2005 when the deficiency what less than a third of what it is now:

Psychiatrists have clinical terms to describe how most elected officials are responding to the deficiency - denial, repression, magical thinking. In short, they're doing next to nothing. There is a deafening silence - from the halls of Congress and corporate boardrooms to the living rooms and voting booths where Americans make decisions about their own and their children's futures.

In fact, there is some good news on the front of. The Congressional Budget Office outlook for 2005 has improved markedly since its March projection. But no one should be lulled into thinking that this good news will last. The problem will get much worse if nothing is done. Deficits will become unsustainable when baby boomers begin to retire in 2008 and are poised to balloon out of control a generation hence, wreaking havoc on today's younger Americans.

The rich can afford to pay more taxes

The most obvious of all reasons for not extending the Bush tax cuts for the rich is also the best reason. They can afford it.

If we were not saddled with a diagnosis of trillion dollar and there were good options for making serious spending cuts, perhaps this argument would not be as strong. But, as I said earlier, in a time of fiscal emergency the only people who can afford to pay more taxes are the rich and it is both reasonable and moral that we ask them to do so.

How did I do?¹

Footnotes:

¹  Alert readers will note that I have made no ad hominem attacks on those who believe we should renew the Bush tax cuts for the rich as well as the middle class. Not a single use of the words selfish, greedy or evil. I assume that the opponents of tax increases on rich people are every bit as patriotic, compassionate and sincere in their beliefs as are the proponents of tax increases on the rich. In other words, it is, the character and decency of those who happen to think differently possible to argue for the expiration of tax cuts on wealthy people without assassinating.

On a slow tax news day I can always issues, James Maule's blog posted again and find a blog post that I can take exception. Here is his latest rant about how everyone else on the tax issue except being conned him (and I assume his comrades in arms Professor Linda Beale):

Years ago, "show me the money" entered the phrase in the vernacular. Maybe it's time to say, "show us orders." Show us the jobs, the nation will answer in gratitude with a tax credit. No tax breaks no jobs. Thats like tax law incentive provisions work.

Threat "no tax breaks, no jobs" is nothing more than bully posturing of the worst sort. There is a reason, tax cut extension supporters as the "show us the jobs then get the tax break"-approach. You know you have some jobs, mainly permanent jobs created in response to earlier tax cuts and the nation to see any kind of job growth with an extension of tax cuts.

Despite warning after warning still people hand over cash home improvement con artists and behavior lead come later when, and because you discover been duped have to repent. Perhaps this explains why America continue to hear and even cave in, grabbing the siren songs of the Pied Piper tax cut.

Still, just as people that keep firm it is in negotiating contracts and perform due diligence before signing a contract, there are people in this country who know how hard working out tax legislation hang and how the facts check, before you agree to a deal.

It is to bombard time for the people their legislators in Washington with a simple message: stop duped being - hold out for job creation before Dishing out tax breaks. I wonder if the Congress has enough of what it takes to save themselves and the nation from the scammers and dubious money grabber. I have serious doubts.

This is epitome Maule and whether you with the substance or not agree, is for the sheer audacity it is Audacity be admired.

Let's break it down, so we are:

"Show us the jobs, the nation will answer in gratitude with a tax deduction."

False. No matter how many jobs due to a greedy Obama created rich tax deal not the extension of the Bush tax cuts are true believers like Mr Maule credit with the cause. He and his ilk will say one or both of the following:

The economy was already in turn before the tax deal was actual to job creation was a result of the middle class tax cuts and we not taxes for rich had cut we would create more jobs.

There is simply no evidence can be produced that will get anti-rich, Pro-big government liberal ever, agree that the rich pay their fair share of taxes. At all!¹

The myth that the rich countries are the cause of the problems of America is part of the Liberal DNA. Without it no longer the class warfare card can be played and without the class warfare map never can win another choice Liberals.

"The" no tax breaks, no jobs "Threat is nothing more than the worst Sort… bully" Gehabe. [T] AX cut extension advocate may not "us view the jobs, then get the tax break"-approach.

Goodness.

If the set people believe that create the tax breaks, jobs, how can you point may the jobs first? That would be like God answering the praying farmer: "map, the me your bumper crop and then I'll make it rain."

The result of a thing may precede the cause.

"You know you have some jobs, mainly permanent jobs created in response to earlier tax cuts and the nation to see any kind of job growth with an extension of tax cuts."

Mr Maule here does what every good demagogue does: he attributes a motif for his opposition, said his motive is different. And attributed is a nefarious: namely that anti Taxers know one range for the tax cut is bad for the economy and no new jobs but want that it anyway.

Intoxicated by a metaphysical certainty, mostly in Shaman and nineteen-year-old student activists, Mr Maule assumes that those might do agree so noble with him reasons. But because he consistently positive supported himself about his accuracy, into a rigid corner, where he has no choice but finally, that those who are with him accept ulterior motives for doing so have.

The moral inferiority of the opponent is the only possible conclusion consistent with such a high level of assurance. All others require at least a minimum of doubt.

"Stop Geführt-Out for jobs before dealing keep being behind the light tax breaks." I wonder if the Congress has enough of what it takes to save themselves and the nation from the scammers and dubious money grabber. "I have serious doubts."

Again, the ad hominem attacks.

Maule increased who tax resists for rich criminals and money grabber and those who follow you are too damn stupid to see it.

Thats one heck of a way to win converts, huh? Tell them how evil and stupid.

Footnotes:

¹  Raison d ' être die hard. There are many on the left who still refuse to acknowledge the following:

Soviet Communism was a serious threat to Western CivilizationAmerica cold WarThe Soviet Ronald Reagan broke policies in large part because of the hawks won

You don't have to spend much time with your Google search to find bar one established, mainstream Liberals wax disjointed on how the Communist threat never really was, but rather a false creation procedure from the heat oppressed brain of cynical right designed to perpetuate his power.

"The tallest tree Gets the toughest wind."

-Konfuzius-

Daniel Becker write for angry bear confesses what I claimed on this page for many months have: leftmost wants the boats of the poor and the middle class to raise, so much as it wants to sink the boats of the rich.

Here what he let said in a post titled, the tax cuts go and hold's it to the top for real:

As part of the nation to support you we were screwed. I ask you all. The bottom 99%. Really want it in the economic royalty in this nation to keep? Is it 1% to 2.5% much to give, finally reality in the income tax?

So do what you say. We show only those at the top you are as unpatriotic. Make the tax cuts go and stand proud because honest American justice won. The largest Screwer you screwed all …the American economic royalty free.

It is there. Naked and proudly call to class warfare.

Tags: Policy of taxation · Tax policy

So much for the pose.

The Washington Post reports that today the Senate voted to extend the Bush tax cuts for the rich by a whopping 62 vote margin:

After a decade of the partisan sniping tax credits issued in the George W. Bush administration, the Senate overwhelmingly agreed to a plan you than Dec. 31 81 19 vote to keep the cuts in the village for families income at all for another two years beyond.

Comedian/Senator Al Franken of Minnesota explains why he voted for the extension of all of the Bush tax cuts:

A lot of people are unhappy punted the President first down, and I am one of you. Expand the excessive Bush tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires is our deficit without something to help our economy explode in the next two years. I think it's just bad politics.

But fight for Minnesota's middle class, by in a tough economy, there is a lot in this Bill that will really help: tax cuts for working families, one Payroll payroll tax holiday, energy tax credits and the extension of the Recovery Act initiatives that already make a difference.

I liked better francs if he was moderately fun.

Tags: Legislative watch · News · Policy of taxation · Tax humor · Tax policy

The more I read and hear about the Wikileaks fiasco, the more will I convinced that America can put the toothpaste back into the tube. It is always leaks and these leaks find their way onto the pages of the Internet, whether we it or not.

So, what should I do?

Now, what happens when started the us instead of fight to prevent the leaks is published a campaign of misinformation, where it intentionally "Leaks" and uploads to Wikileaks and similar sites false classified information. This will destroy the credibility of the Wikileaks because its readers unable, accurate information and phony classified information can differ.

Just an idea. What do you think?

Tags: Opinion

CBS News reports that agreed late at night the House of representatives to pass the Obama tax inter alia deal you will extend the Bush tax cuts for all American taxpayers:

Trading with unusual speed, Congress President Obama sent curved, bipartisan legislation to avoid a Jan. to renew 1 spike income taxes for millions and unemployment benefits for the victims of the worst recession for 80 years late Thursday.

The measure will reduce social security taxes for almost every wage earners and billions of dollars in the still sluggish economy to pumps. CBS News Capitol Hill correspondent Nancy Cordes reports, primarily is an early Christmas present for every American taxpayer.

The Bill 81 19 came less than 24 hours after the Senate deleted 277-148 votes.

The legislation was the result of a reach across party lines between Obama and top Republicans in Congress - stubborn opponents during two years of political struggle ended, the GOP the undisputed winner in midterm elections on November 2 were.

Now awaits President's signature. In other words, it is a done deal and an early Christmas present for the American taxpayer.

Tags: Legislative watch · News · Tax policy

Everything had to do to a hero in the 1960s became, write a song or two that have hurt some social taboo, striking promiscuous sex and die of an overdose of drugs.

See Janis Joplin, Jimi Hendrix and Jim Morrison.

At least the first two were talented.

Lame lame duck Governor Charlie Crist has given a posthumous pardon and the third, lead singer of the doors and most prolific drug head, Jim Morrison:

Outgoing Governor Charlie Crist asked for the pardon granted the mildly Board unanimously. Crist he said Morrison actually questioned his penis during a rowdy 1 March 1969 concert in Miami's dinner key Auditorium suspended. He and a three member Cabinet serve as the mild Board. The pardon supports the remaining members of the doors.

Crist at the hearing called a conviction "Blot" on the record of an accomplished artist for "something he may or may not have done." Morrison died before he was granted the chance, his vocation to present, to Crist that do for him, he said. Members of the Board pointed out, several times that you could repeat the case but that the pardon Morrison, forgave like others of their beliefs on Thursday were acquitted.

"In this case the guilt or innocence is in God's hands, not us," said Crist.

I have no doubt that Governor tanning bed is a big fan of the doors music and this was a major influence on his decision granting pardon. That certainly makes sense because Jim Morrison's poetry, Shakespeare, Milton and Blake rivals. Listen to just this monosyllabic tour de farce:

Love me two times, baby
Love me twice today
Love me two times, girls
I'm goin way '
Love me two times, girls
One for tomorrow
One just for today
Love me two times
I'm goin way '

Love me once
I could not speak
Love me once
Yeah, my knees got weak
But love me two times, girls
All last me through the week
Love me two times
I'm goin way '
Love me two times
I'm goin way '

Oh yes

Love me once
I could not speak
Once, love me baby
Yeah, my knees got weak
But love me two times, girls
All last me through the week
Love me two times
I'm goin way '

Love me two times, Babe
Love me twice today
Love me two times, Babe
Because I removed Goin ' am
Love me two times, girls
One for tomorrow
One just for today
Love me two times
I'm goin way '
Love me two times
I'm goin way '
Love me two times
I'm goin way '

Paul Simon food could be two doses of alphabet soup, his finger in his neck stick and induce lyrics of better than this.

Jim Morrison died from an overdose drugs at the age of 27. His entire adult life was always high and screws dedicated groupies. He was an accomplished artist like the above texts an attractive iconoclast prove, but rather, who just happened to live in an iconoclastic time.

It must be earned someone more a pardon Crist as these losers.

Tags: News · Opinion · Policy