NotAGolfer (Gina Becker)


Comment history

Gun bills easily approved

No, the Civil War did not abolish the 10th Amendment.

April 10, 2013 at 9:20 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Gun bills easily approved

You want a police state, then? Where only police have guns?

April 10, 2013 at 9:18 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Gun bills easily approved

It could help protect your kids from would-be mass murderers.

In Nigeria, people aren't allowed to have guns, and their government police state promises to protect them. That's why gangs can regularly invade towns, enslave some of the children, and kill everyone else with big knives.

April 10, 2013 at 9:15 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Governor forms committee to increase recreational, tourism opportunities on Kansas River

No, the free market would take care of that. The businesses interested in providing tourism services would be highly motivated to clean it up.

April 10, 2013 at 9:08 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Senate advances bill giving private health clubs property tax break

The best solution is to get rid of non-profit status altogether. All businesses serve society, much better than non-profits do. Non-profits are mechanisms for people to avoid taxes, to pay higher salaries rather than take "nasty profits," and to act like they're actually doing something noble.

Either tax all organizations, or tax none.

March 28, 2013 at 8:13 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Revised income, sales tax bill clears Senate

JayHawkFan, Yours is the only decent point I've read by a lefty on this matter so far (up until the diatribe on the rich not paying their fair share, which is B.S.). But I think the benefits in economic growth from lowering income and corporate taxes will well offset the deduction of income tax on the federal returns. It's a shame that having to beg back the money we send to the federal government, after it's taken a hefty chunk and squandered most on programs that actually cost us matching money to support, always has so many manipulative strings attached. We'd be better off keeping all of our Fed Dept of Education dollars, for example, distributing them to schools around the state, than taking the trickle-down leftovers from the fed, which have so many costly strings attached.

March 16, 2013 at 7:53 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Senate approves Chamber-backed bill opposed by unions

You're a little mixed up. Hitler consolidated and "improved" unions. Unions loved and supported him and his socialist policies (before they discovered, too late, they'd sold their freedom for a bowl of proverbial porridge).

Unions are doing the same now, giving politicians power in exchange for the politicians writing laws that coerce companies and the public into giving them what they want. If you give too much power to bureaucrats to control society (based on the politicians' promise to take care of you), they'll soon control society, having no more use for the useful idiots who helped them consolidate power.

March 15, 2013 at 1:22 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Senate approves Chamber-backed bill opposed by unions

The point is that now I, who don't agree with many union political stances, will no longer be forced to pay the administration costs of collecting union dues for the unions. As I wrote to weeslicket, What if you were forced to pay the administrative costs for churches to collect tithes from state employees who wanted to tithe to their church? Do we just let anybody who'd like to collect money from state employees for some cause burden state administrators with the task of handling the payroll deductions and forwarding the money? No, of course, we shouldn't.

March 15, 2013 at 1:12 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Senate approves Chamber-backed bill opposed by unions

weeslicket, I don't want my tax money going to administrate dues collection for unions, whose politics I mostly don't like. If they want to collect dues, they should pay for the administrative costs out of their own dues. Why is that difficult for you to understand? What if some Christian organization wanted the state to collect tithes from state employees through their state paychecks? Would you want to pay for that administrative cost?

Then, yes, unions are always trying to pass or keep coercive laws, such as those that require open ballots and those that require employees of a unionized plant to join their union. In many states, they are successful in keeping these coercive tactics legal.

March 15, 2013 at 1:05 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Senate approves Chamber-backed bill opposed by unions

The unions use taxpayer money (from Dems and Repubs alike) to administrate their dues collection that supports mostly Democratic candidates. That's what I said and what I meant. Unions have bought off past politicians to get govt to cover their administrative costs (and to make the dues come out of paychecks like taxes do--less noticed and less questioned than if the employeees had to write out checks each time).

March 15, 2013 at 12:57 p.m. ( | suggest removal )