43 responses so far ↓

• 1 Trent Hill // Apr 23, 2009 at 4:18 pm

  Jack Uldrich has a history in the IP that is pretty unassailable. He’ll make a capable leader, im sure.

• 2 Donald Raymond Lake // Apr 23, 2009 at 9:52 pm

  So many possibilities, so little recent progress. [Can't get off the dime of 'one state' or 'national' focus...........]

  Lousey on abused veterans.

  —– Citizens For A Better Veterans Home

• 3 Mike Indiana // Apr 24, 2009 at 12:30 pm

  with Pam Ellison as the candidate for governor?

  This is incorrect Peter Hutchinson (Former Deputy Mayor of Minneapolis) was the IPM candidate for Governor in 2006. Pam Ellison was a candidate for the parties nomination but lost to Hutchinson.

• 4 Michael Cavlan // Apr 24, 2009 at 1:15 pm

  For the record folks

  Minnesota is the ONLY state in the United States that has another political party that has major party status that is not Democrap or Rethuglican.

  The IP garnered 18% of the vote in the US Senate race even with the cries of Democraps and Rethuglicans on “how important this race is.” The Green party had been a major party but lost it.

  Norm Coleman was quoted on The Patriot radio station that if there was another election that the IP candidate would probably win.

  People are leaving the IP for pretty much the same reason that many inn Minnesota are leaving the GP. Lack of transparency, unethical actions, attempts top attack and smear people who are actually doing the work, etc etc.

  These two groups of former IPers and former Greens are working and organizing as we speak.

  Like i said folks. If you are interested in building a serios alternative to the pro-war, corporate corrupted two party system, keep your eyes on Minnesota.

  Remember Governor Jessie Ventura and former governor Floyd Olson.

  We are going to make waves. Those of us who are serious and are done with attack your own party members politics.

• 5 Ross Levin // Apr 24, 2009 at 1:44 pm

  Mike – that’s what the article said that I got this info from. Maybe it meant that they ran as a team but lost the nomination.

• 6 Mike Indiana // Apr 24, 2009 at 1:54 pm

  ‘Kari Johnson-Robinson Not on Ballot in 2006′

  Maureen Reed (not Johnson-Robinson) was the candidate for lieutenant governor who appeared on the ballot in the 2006 General election for the IPM (Hutchinson was Gov Can).

  Pam Ellison-Kari Johnson-Robinson ran together as a Gov-Lt Gov ticket in the 2006 IPM primary (in Minn. tickets not candidates run in primary) losing to the nominee’s
  http://electionresults.sos.state.mn.us/20060912/ElecRslts.asp?M=S&R=all&P=A&Races=”

  Primary Results
  Hutchinson/Reed -
  7725 votes 66.09%
  Ellison/Kari Johnson-Robinson-
  3964votes 33.91%

  11,689 total primary votes (that’s quite a large turnout for a third party non-presidential primary, the only 3rd party primary with a larger turnout that I can think of was the 2006 California Green Party primary for US Senate where the 3 candidates received a total of 27,788 votes.

• 7 Ross Levin // Apr 24, 2009 at 2:16 pm

  OK, thanks.

• 8 Michael Cavlan // Apr 24, 2009 at 8:10 pm

  Ross
  Yeah, I know. I am working with Pam Ellison on a regular basis.

  In fact, after the Ron Paul folks asked me to speak at the End The Fed Rally (tomorrow) at the federal reserve in Minneapolis, I contacted pam, asked the people organizing the rally if Pam could speak also, they said “sure.”

  Like I said, keep your eyes on Minnesota folks.

• 9 Mike Indiana // Apr 25, 2009 at 12:14 am

  Ross-

  First thing in no way was I trying to say you were wrong and ridicule you.

  After reading your post I went on to read the source, and had started to move on when I realized that there was a false statement in the Star Tribune article (on search I found several other sites with similar mistakes) I was attempting to ridicule the paper, which like all mainstream media rarely cover third parties and when they do they often get the facts wrong. I commented about this mistake on the star-tribune website but I’ve noticed my comment was taken down. I guess the paper either doesn’t care about quality journalism or has a definitive bias against third parties. Then again the paper did endorse Franklin in the US senate race and, Barkley has been called a “Spoiler” so there could be a bias. But if the paper or the writer of the piece buys into the “spoiler” argument which is ignorant then one has to question weather the paper is capable of quality journalism.

• 10 Michael Cavlan // Apr 25, 2009 at 1:22 am

  The Minneapolis Star Tribune is a worthless piece of crap.

  When I ran for US Senate in Minnesota 2006 as a Green, they flat out refused to ever mention my name as a candidate.

  I am a Registered Nurse who had lived in northern Ireland (personal experiences with living with terrorism) using the northern ireland peace process as a template for non-violent conflict resolution, peace activist, had treated some of the victims of the Pentagon attack a week after the 9-11 attacks, had been Green Party Official Observer in 2004 Ohio Re-Count.

  None of which was newsworthy, according to the Minneapolis Star Tribune.

  There is no quality journalism in that paper.

  Trust me.

• 11 Michael Cavlan // Apr 25, 2009 at 2:42 am

  I should mention that I experienced the same thing with Air America and the so called progressive Nation magazine.

• 12 Pam Ellison // Apr 26, 2009 at 2:16 am

  I see that my colleague and friend Michael Cavlan has been active on this site today, actually I guess it was yesterday. I will say that although Jesse Ventura was really the impetus from changing the party from the Reform Party to the Independence Party of Minnesota, and although they still retain major party status, now through the more recent US Senate race of Dean Barkley, they lack real traction. Michael Cavlan and others of us, who want REAL transformation of government and a REAL nationwide movement to counteract the stagnation and gridlock of the duopoly in Washington are moving forward to organize not only in Minnesota but in North and South Dakota, Iowa and beyond.
  We believe a strong “party of choice” movement, rather than the wretched term “third party” or shall we just call it the “red-headed stepchild party”, NOT, can actually build the capacity nationwide and in each state to reach the majority of people that are not party affiliated. By establishing core values that include, dropping labels, of persons or ideas, we can build a party of concensus that stays away from wedge issues that go nowhere and seek to further divide us from the important tasks at hand.

  My personal dream is to gather independent leadership that include the likes of Ron Paul, Ralph Nader, Michael Bloomberg, Jim Hightower, Arianna Huffington and Jesse Ventura to bring thousands of people to the table and end the corporate welfare and the slavery of the average American Citizen to the Federal Reserve. We believe that in order to take America back, it is going to take all of us that have been arm chair quartebacking for so long to get off the couch and do something to show you are against the direction this country is heading. Talk to your neighbor, come to a rally, hand out flyers, join an action group that can propell the idea of getting back to the common sense of the spirit of the constitution in word and deed.

  If you want to be a part of this, contact us, let us know! We are ready to launch this thing in the coming weeks in Minnesota and will begin organizing is states nationwide that are interested in what we may be able to accomplish.

  We are calling on all citizens that have worked hard over the last several years to attain ballot access for candidates such as Ralph Nader and Matt Gonzalez to join our cause. We need to get every available unattached citizen in this nation to join us for the cause of freedom, justice and sustainable living, to counteract the failed policies of large corporations that believe in their personhood over the American citizen.

  We need to gather peaceably and let our concerns be known to all.

  Peace,

  Pam Ellison

• 13 Sean Scallon // Apr 27, 2009 at 11:33 am

  What are you calling for Pam? A completely new political party? What are your intentions? I thought the Minnesota IP was trying to organize like-minded parties such as in New York and elsewhere into one national party?

• 14 Michael Cavlan // Apr 27, 2009 at 12:35 pm

  Sean

  I will answer that question for you. Pam Ellison is leading the charge of former IP folks in Minnesota and joining with former Green party folks in creating a new political party here in Minnesota and elsewhere in the Mid West.

  The stories and experiences from many former IP activists seem to mirror exactly the same as former Green Party activists.

  We are now working together to create something very real and serious. An actual, organized and serious opposition to the pro-war corporate corrupted two party system.

• 15 Erik Geib // Apr 27, 2009 at 12:43 pm

  Michael,

  Is this idea similar to others I’ve heard proposed, but never enacted (that being of a a third ‘opposition’ party without an actual platform, that instead relied upon local candidates’ views and getting another voice on the platform)? If so, how would this organization ensure that interests within the organization never attempted a takeover that advocated one agenda over another? If not, disregard the question as stated.

  I’d like to hear more info. about this cause. Is there a website available?

  Also, what will its primary focus be? Personally I’d focus on the ‘big four’ (ballot access, debate access, gerrymandering, and first-person-past-the-post), but I’m curious to hear where y’all view your priorities.

• 16 Pam Ellison // May 2, 2009 at 10:38 am

  Erik and Sean:

  As Michael stated our goal is to work with the disenfranchised third party members who believe the former entities they were apart of lack the ability to truly organize in the grassroots and acually WELCOME others who have not participated in political system per se. We are not inviting Republicans and Democrats, they have their own parties, but rather our focus in the HUGE group of people that don’t vote, because they see nothing to vote for, and do not really feel the need to be part of a party. In order to build the capacity of membership needed, we need to reach out to many third party entities already working in other states. The whole goal is to completely turn the usual way of organizing on its ear, and work for REAL change by leading differently and focusing on a short platform of issues that are crucial to all, and avoiding wedge issues that so many times dominate the rhetoric and arguing in the states and in Washington, DC.

  We are just forming and have a few organizational meetings. We will have a website up when the timeline is right, but we hope to have a Convention by fall. Stay tuned. If you or others have interest in joining please contact me personally at pamellison@isp.com or talk personally with Michael Cavlan.

  We will allow our candidates to choose where they stand personally on wedge issues such as: abortion, death penalty, gun control, etc. We will have a platform that is easy to understand and limited to a few items. We have also decided to have a strict policy of respect for others, civil society and the ability to agree to disagree. We plan do use technology as has never been seen before, and all of this will be unveiled shortly.

  Thank you for your interest. Oh, and by the way, we don’t really need any TOP DOWN leadership, this is a whole new game. We are only interested in those who wish to WORK and I mean take a job and seriously run with it.

  These organizing times are crucial and strategies at this time will be held somewhat close to the vest to those organizing the party at this time.

  Soon all will be revealed.

  Thanks again,

  Pam Ellison

• 17 Ross Levin // May 2, 2009 at 10:41 am

  Best of luck with your new party.

  Here’s something to consider for the platform: The National Initiative for Democracy ( http://www.ni4d.org )

• 18 Pam Ellison // May 2, 2009 at 10:41 am

  To answer Sean’s question about a whole new party, yes we are in our state calling for a whole new party. The three major parties fall seriously short of addressing issues of the middle class. However, we will be building coalitions with other parties across the country and also working to organize in the surrounding states. We have already talked to interested persons in Wisconsin and North Dakota.

  We believe this can be done.

  Stay tuned.

  Pam Ellison

• 19 Ross Levin // May 2, 2009 at 4:01 pm

  Pam – what do you think will be in the party’s platform?

• 20 mdh // May 2, 2009 at 4:22 pm

  Pam,
  Don’t forget to have fun.

  On another note, addressing issues of the middle class is a bit of an interesting policy item. The middle class tend to be content to the point of complacency. The LPWV tends to instead target those who are NOT middle class – the poor, who feel that government has prevented them from rising up, and the wealthy, who tend to feel the impact of overregulation more severely. We’re just one example, but I think that our strategy is spot-on in this regard. I don’t think we, as third parties, get as much support from the “middle class” as we do from people who are less complacently content and more readily feel the impact of bad government.

• 21 Trent Hill // May 2, 2009 at 7:58 pm

  “the only 3rd party primary with a larger turnout that I can think of was the 2006 California Green Party primary for US Senate where the 3 candidates received a total of 27,788 votes.”

  The 2008 AIP Presidential Primary in California had, I believe, 24,000 votes for 3 candidates–all no-names.

• 22 Pam Ellison // May 2, 2009 at 8:06 pm

  All of us are very concerned about whether the Constitution is ever even looked at by most elected officials. We need to downsize government and now may be the best opportunity to do this, when we ALL are being asked to tighten our belts. Perhaps government should as well. I think we also need to consider ending congressional pensions, unless they are willing that each of us has the identical plan. I also think the same of their health care plan, if we have one instated that is comparable to theirs, then fine, but until this is the case, no healthcare for Congress.

  I think these limitations may have many resigning immediately, and if not, these considerations may go a long way to provide for natural term limits. Those who cannot afford to be without the health care coverage or pension, will be forced to perhaps only serve for one term. How refreshing it would be to have a good house and senate cleaning every couple of terms.

  The original idea was for someone to leave their job for a short time to run for office and then return after their stint to the private sector. I believe this would greatly benefit the nation if this were the case today.

  We are not JUST targeting the middle class, we are concerned that abject poverty is rising in our country, however, many in poverty qualify for Minnesota Care and Medicaid and other programs that those who work do not.

  Many work and may make enough to subsist, but if any crisis comes up, say of a medical nature, or one being laid off, people are in crisis sooner rather than later.

  The other main and driving issue will be restoration of the constitution, and getting corporations off welfare, meaning there should be a strict line of delineation between corporate, private interests and government and its elected officials.

  Most of our elected officials are vested in the very corporations that seek relief from the government. Kind of a cozy situation don’t you think? This needs to stop.

  How many letters from citizens begging an elected official to do something to solve this issue will it take to actually get some action? Ten, Ten thousand? If they are getting pay off, why would your measley letter mean anything to them. In fact, when was the last time you actually got a personal email from your elected official when you send in a concern or a question? AUTO reply does not cut it.

  We also need to think about a flat tax or a less regressive tax for everyone based on income, so that it is fair across the board, with no deductions, period. Most of us are already taxed in the 35-40% range, that is if we are middle class, without the ability to hire a big lawyer that has all of the deductions at his or her disposal in order for you to keep a windfall.

  Imagine if we all only paid , ALL OF US, even the wealthy top tier, only 15-20% of our earnings in. For the middle class it would be a great relief. For the upper class, it may be a bite in the shorts for the first time around, but fair. Everyone pays the same percentage of what they earn, with no deductions.

  It would end the huge tax code gerrymanderings and simplify filing taxes, but we COULD retrain them all to become USDA meat inspectors or Homeland Security officers. I hear there is a severe shortage of the first, and depending on what we do about immigration, there could be a real need to help issue Green Cards for guest workers at the borders and keep in touch with those who have temporary Visas and those awaiting citizenship papers.

  You see, there is usually a very common sense way to handle complicated problems

  I find it interesting that many, though willing to have more affordable and universal health care coverage for all, would call Single Payer Health Care socialism.

  However, I would contend that taxpayers paying for the bailout of large banks and large businesses is socialistic as well. Add to that the fact that the CEOs continue to get an obscene amount of money, while the working class gets laid off.

  We want to focus on employing more people with the technologies that our country NEEDS to turn around our economy, produce more jobs and make America strong again.

  Invest in our infrastructure, hopefully with new technologies for longer lasting roads and bridges. We need to get people off the grid by encouraging self sustainable living and investing in solar, wind and geothermal heating and cooling. Encourage the long standing but somewhat forgotten art of the vegetable garden.

  We need to be certain our water system and air quality remains clean and protected.

  We need to make certain that our food is safe and we need to encourage sustainably grown foods and support local growers, stores and coops rather than always trucking in food from all over.

  We need a more efficient way of moving food around the country and we need to make certain our food is inspected and safe for consumption.

  We need to end subsidies. We need all those who have businesses to be in a free market that allows the business to set their own price in the marketplace, and end government subsidies that create false markets and seem to benefit food conglomerates over those that grow and transport our foods.

  We need to protect our privacy, and still keep our country as safe as possible. Do we want the Patriot Act? Do we all know what license the Patriot Act allows our law enforcement and courts to do? If not, we all need to bone up on the actual documents.

  We need to support small businesses with the fervor that BIG CORPORATIONS are being endowed with by the government. Small business sustains us in hard times. Big corporations just reorganize, screw over the shareholders, and go on to greater success than before. What about the little guy who invested in a company that was able to make his stock worthless? Remember KMart? They reorganized and merged with Sears, and all of the stockholders that had invested in KMart before the restructuring were told their stock would have no value. Then they merged with Sears and both companies are stronger than ever, shouldn’t those investors have been able to trade their shares in KMart for shares in the new company? Make sense to me.

  We need to think seriously about single payer health care. There is so much misinformation out there about this subject, because the fearmongers of Big Pharma, and the insurance lobby would have you believe that you would never be seen in the event of an emergency because there would be so many in line ahead of you. Hogwash!

  Single payer health care USES the private system already in place and the only losers will be the highly paid CEOs and their minions that won’t know how to liquidate their McMansions and their other assets.

  And single payer healthcare has another benefit that people rarely think about. It actually would cause great economic growth, because small businesses and entrepreneurs that cannot afford to start a business AND pay for the health care of their employees would be able to start up a business knowing that our heathcare is provided by all of chipping in, and is not attached to our jobs.

  Separating health care coverage from our jobs is very important in times like these, because when you lose your job, you lose your healthcare and that can be a sticky wicket when you have little money to pay your Dr.

  What happens to the insurance industry and all of those jobs? With all of the money we save by covering everyone, we could set up a job retraining program for those that are hit personally as a result of the new system.

  We need a movement and a party that has informed citizens who actually will do something to show their disagreement to the Government in a peaceful way. At the RNC, there was no allowance for peaceful demonstration. There were many attacked and arrested for civilly disobeying the order to not gather to show solidarity in peace.

  We want a better quality of life with less bureaucracy and less partisanship. We need more voices heard. We need ordinary people from all walks of life to be willing to run for all levels of office. Municipal, city, county, state and national candidates are being sought by this new party.

  We all can get involved on a level that we can sustain, and still have our voices heard. We need to make the most of technology, and belong to a party that uses every tool of our current technology available to us to run more efficiently and save the gas expended to meet face to face. We have the power to do this, and be successful.

  Many of these issues are being discussed in our fledgling party, that is not quite ready for primetime as of yet but will shortly be. Our platform is under consideration currently, and these may not all be part of it, but they have been discussed.

  If any of these issues compel you to be interested, let us know what you think and how you think some of these problems should be tackled.

  I have always believed that the staightforward solutions to complicated problems in our society lie in the general public’s life experiences that have taught them well.

  I hope this fleshes out some more information for all of you.

  Sorry for the long post. I may not be online for a couple of days, so I gave you enough to hopefully discuss, in my absence.

  Peace, out.

  Pam Ellison

• 23 Ross Levin // May 2, 2009 at 9:10 pm

  Thanks for all the info!

  I believe the top 1% of income earners pays about 40% of their income in taxes right now, not less than 15% as you suggested.

  Also, wouldn’t paying Congress very well keep them from trying to get bribes and such at least to a certain degree?

• 24 Pam Ellison // May 2, 2009 at 11:23 pm

  I didn’t suggest that this is what they are paying now, I suggested that if we go to a flat tax and ALL pay 15-20% of our income across the board, it would be more fair than the system now. I assume the top 1% would include folks like Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, etc? With the incomes the each command, 40% of their income is a lot less for them than it is for people making 80,000.00 per year, and when you think of the many things they can deduct, in comparison with what an average person can, is quite different.

  In any case, I believe that everyone should be paying the same percentage, and obviously that will be very different from everyone else in terms of total given, but the percentage would be the same amount, and therefore fairer with much less paperwork.

  No, I don’t believe so, because if you look at the impact of greed out there, there appears to be no limit of what people want. I think they would just expect all the more from lobbyists, in spite of a pay raise for themselves. That is just plain old human nature. I think we have seen enough of the bad side of that in the past six months haven’t we?

  With all due respect, if I as a business person were to craft the bail out legislation with as little teeth in it than these members of Congress did, I would not only be fired from my job, I would be tarred and feathered to boot and most likely also run out of the country on a rail.

  They already make much more than the majority of the people they represent. I think that it should be public “service” not the public “trough”. Their jobs just require exercising common sense, and understanding of the issues and lots of research and reading and the ability to listen to their constituents.

  These are not the requirements of brain surgeons pr rocket scientists, and they should be paid on a par with the average pay of their constituents, no more, no less. They need to serve for a time and go back to the private sector, the longer they stay the more they are rewarded. It is clearly not based on merit.

  When some of our elected officials are asking us to consider merit pay for teachers, then perhaps we should ask them if they would like to have that system as well. I think you will find they do not.

  Thanks for your comments and questions.

  Pam Ellison

• 25 mdh // May 3, 2009 at 12:15 am

  Knocking out congressional healthcare benefits will only make it more difficult for regular folks to be elected, and make it even more reserved to only the wealthiest (who have no problem paying out of pocket for their own healthcare.)
  It ought to be a job and receive similar benefits to any other professional desk job in the DC market.

• 26 mdh // May 3, 2009 at 12:16 am

  Of course, there’s one real good solution…

  There’s no government like no government.

• 27 Ross Levin // May 3, 2009 at 9:43 am

  I think the top 1% is anyone making over $250,000 or so a year.

• 28 Pam Ellison // May 3, 2009 at 10:47 am

  That may be true, but there needs to be a TOP TOP level that aren’t paying their fair share now. I don’t think anyone who uses our roads, water, police, fire department libraries, school system etc, should be exempt from paying in like the rest of us.

  As far as mdh’s comment about there is no government than no government. Isn’t that what we have now. We aren’t at complete anarchy but it is right around the corner. I have some libertarian views, but most of them refer to individual freedoms of choice as well as to privacy and giving people some space and time for a private life. As long as they are not harming anyone in their personal lives, does government have the right to intrude? I say no, but if you Have a government as we do, I think we have a prime example of what levels people will sink to when greed is involved. De-regulation of everything does not make sense when we get to this level, because the rich will take care of themselves, even if it means laying off their workers, as long as they have out of sight income, why should they care about everyone else. I am by no means a communist but I do lean towards a socialist democracy on some fronts. For instance, the fire department, the police department, public libraries and public schools are examples of socialistic concepts. We all pay for these because very few of us would be able to protect ourselves from crime or from fire in our homes. Very few of us would be able to build our own roads wherever we choose to travel, etc. But I am tired of the labels we constrict ourselves with, by saying, this is socialistic, this is communist, this is liberal, this is conservative. Maybe the 21st Century should be a new era where we drop labels and just look at the full spectrum of solutions without labelling them, and look at workability and sound common sense about solving problems. I say that the person that comes to the table with the best idea for change that is viable, workable and may solve the problem at hand, should win the day. Sometimes we never even discuss ideas that are viable because we are so predisposed to whether it is an idea rooted in our western cultures way of democracy. I think Plato had it right when he stated in “The Republic” that a democratic republic has a shelf life of about 200 years before it will digress into anarchy due largely to the greed an power of a few. This also is caused by unbridled freedom, without the responsibility. Remember folks our rights end at the tip of our noses, before it affects others around us, we need to have some mode of responsibilities for others. And we also need to value the work of all people instead of just the Wall Street moneymakers and those that have untold wealth. If the garbage man ceases to pick up the garbage, we soon find out how necessary he is to the chain of responsibility in our lives. Can we just be more inclusive of everyone, can we really try to respect everyone’s point of view, even if we don’t hold to it ourselves? Can we respect and actually like each other even when we don’t agree on every issue? I think this can be realistic, and I believe a new party can address this, by deliberately and with consensus designing it to be so.

  I guess our experiment will tell if we can.
  I don’t believe that No Government is the Best Government, but I do believe that we need to limit the size and scope and make certain that justice is part of the mix. Not just for the moneyed or the privileged, but for everyone. Not just for Republicans or Democrats but for those that put their belief in other ideas as well.

  When we begin to see our government put us on the hook for a tax burden that we have no stake in, I draw the line. This is slavery, and I don’t believe that is why we came to America, only to be subjects to a kingdom again.

  Enjoy the beautiful day, and think about how you might make a difference to someone today, that is in a positive way.

  Cheers,

  Pam Ellison

• 29 Ross Levin // May 3, 2009 at 11:04 am

  But if you’re saying that they should pay 15-20%, that’s about half or so of what the top 1% or top .1% pays now. How is that making them pay their fair share if you don’t think they’re paying enough now?

• 30 Pam Ellison // May 5, 2009 at 8:33 pm

  I would have to look at the data. If this is the case, why is it that there is a current move by President and Obama and others in Congress to have those individuals pay in more? 1% of their income may be more than my 15% but proportionately, the tax should be equitable across the board. I would agree that most people making well over 250,00.00 per year may pay more taxes than I do because their income is that much greater. Is it just to have them continue to pay less because they make more and their less is more than my fraction? No. I would say that if they pay 1% and that is more than my 15%, then that is the price of being wealthy, but proportionately, I am still paying in a larger portion of my income than they are.

  Currently, they can rely on deductions that bring their tax burdens down considerably through loopholes and such. If you have everyone pay the same percentage of THEIR income, without deductions, isn’t that a more fair system?

• 31 Ross Levin // May 5, 2009 at 8:53 pm

  I’m not sure I follow you – they pay more proportionally so that is their fair share but you want them to pay less anyway?

• 32 Pam Ellison // May 7, 2009 at 11:38 pm

  Ross:

  I am saying that a flat tax across the board with everyone paying the same percentage of their income with no deductions, would be more fair and would constrain government from getting into all of the areas they are not constitutionally responsible for.

  As long as the tax code continues to be so vague and convoluted, they will continue to rob us more and more each year and continue to grow the government as much as they can. I believe I heard a report the other night on MacNeil Lehrer that the number of government jobs are taking over the number of private sector jobs.

  So it appears we create bureaucracy to create jobs, rather than simplifying the tax code, having everyone across the board pay the same percentage regardless of income and stimulate the economy by investing in the private sector and the new technologies that need to be manufactured in order to get our country to be strong and self sufficient again.

  We need to have transparent taxation and straightforward accounting. I don’t know how we are accounting all of these bailouts currently, but I cannot believe that more people are not crying FOWL!!!

  We are no better off than the serfs were in 19th century Russia and at the turn of the century. When we are forced to pay for a debt that we had no part in, this is Slavery.

  I don’t know if I have helped clear up your questions or not, Ross, but I have tried.

  Flat taxation is the most transparent, fair tax that is out there. There are many machinations of the system, but in my reading on this, it seems to be true.

  Time for bed.

  Pam Ellison

• 33 Trent Hill // May 8, 2009 at 1:41 am

  “We are no better off than the serfs were in 19th century Russia and at the turn of the century. When we are forced to pay for a debt that we had no part in, this is Slavery.”

  This is why people dont take third party activists seriously. You do NOT honestly think this, and if you do–you have an enormously ignorant understanding of serfdom in Russia.

• 34 Brian Holtz // May 8, 2009 at 3:03 pm

  What Trent said.

• 35 Pam Ellison // May 10, 2009 at 11:42 pm

  I have a great understanding of serfs in Russia. Just wait until things continue to deteriorate. This country is on very unstable ground, and only time will tell how bad it may get.

  I am willing to try to fight against what is going on, that is more than I can say for the two party system. Perhaps you are more naieve than you think about what is going on in this country.

  I take it you get all your news from the mainstream media?

• 36 Pam Ellison // May 10, 2009 at 11:44 pm

  What I said.

• 37 mdh // May 10, 2009 at 11:54 pm

  I used to be a Steve Forbes flat tax supporter. Now I’m a no tax supporter, though…

• 38 Trent Hill // May 11, 2009 at 2:17 am

  “Just wait until things continue to deteriorate.”

  That sentence has only 7 words, and yet you STILL managed to stuff a syntax error in there.

  “This country is on very unstable ground, and only time will tell how bad it may get. ”

  Are 4/5ths of people enslaved, literally? No.
  This is rediculous. Comparing your current situation, or ours as a country/society, to that of Russian serfs is ignorant, insensitive, and insufferably stupid.

  “I take it you get all your news from the mainstream media?”

  ….is that a joke? I RUN IPR, a non-mainstream media outlet.

• 39 mdh // May 11, 2009 at 3:09 pm

  Trent, we all know you’re really Rupert Murdoch.

• 40 Trent Hill // May 13, 2009 at 3:03 am

  No seriously–she REALLY thinks that?

• 41 Pam Ellison // May 13, 2009 at 11:16 pm

  Trent:

  So what do you call the entire population of the United States of America saddled with a debt that we have no benefit in?

  I call that SLAVERY Trent.

  A Russian Serf is merely a SLAVE not unlike the Black Slaves of our country. And as I am quite certain all slaves will agree on; “A serf by any other name is still a slave. I mean you DO know that it is “serf” not surf, right?

  You are aware that those of us who think we own real estate really don’t right? Property rights are down the tubes, you know that right? You know that the government can and will seize anything you own, without one thought correct?

  Ok, serfs only worked the land, they didn’t own it. Not unlike our farmers that are paid not to grow what they want to on THEIR OWN LAND, right? I rest my case.

  For someone who claims to be out of the mainstream, I think you need to check your navigational devices.

  Syntax error aside. If your techno babble makes you feel safer, I can understand that. I suppose If you want to call me ignorant, insensitive and insufferably stupid, then you should at least have your facts straight. You’re kind of the Jerry Springer of the “non-mainstream media” aren’t you? Cutting people down and calling them stupid, is kind of a Rush Limbaugh RUSH for you if you know what I am getting at, correct?

  Syntax error, sSpoken like a person who is so plugged in to their technology, they live in their own “virtual world”.

  Wake up and smell the coffee.

  Just because you are on the internet, does not make you out of the mainstream, in fact I think that BECAUSE you are on the internet, you may just be new Rupert Murdoch of the “non-mainstream”, mainstream media.

  I am certain Alex Jones is impressed with your non-mainstream-ed-ness.

  Thanks for the giggle Trent. You made my day.

  Pam Ellison

• 42 Pam Ellison // May 13, 2009 at 11:30 pm

  I guess you read one of those “American”written Russian History Books….

• 43 Michael Cavlan // May 14, 2009 at 1:12 am

  Pam

  Good job girl.

  Keep it up. We know that we are on the right track.

  Ignore the begrudgers.

  See you tomorrow.

Leave a Comment