• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Tax Revolt:Revolutionary War Part II:4-12 Updated added Maine

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Uh, here's a bulletin:

THE PROPERTY TAXES ON MY HOUSE WENT DOWN THIS YEAR, while my home's value increased about 8%.

This guy is a Libertarian, anti-government wacko who, if he succeeds, will destroy the public schools, police, and fire departments in this state. I'd rather spend my money on schools than prisons thank you.

Truly stupid move and I've had several people here try to get me to buy into this guy's nonsense. They have a petition up as well.

-Robert
 
Originally posted by: Dissipate
Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
Originally posted by: Dissipate
Originally posted by: dirtboy
Okay, so how will schools and things that get their monies from property tax get money under your plan??????

Having the state pay for your child's education is sloth. Unfortunately, public education is truly insidious because it makes parents who would send their kids to private schools pay twice for their kids' education.

Property taxes are levied because there is a physical location to collect and evasion is difficult. It is theft plain and simple.



thats right, and public universities? should be dismantled. all parents should be able to pay unsubsidized ivy league fee's. its a sign of a responsible parent. if you cant, well every society needs a lower class. and well community college? those simply shouldnt and can't exist without subsidies. too bad. survival of the fittest i say!


and well, the people who benifit the most from property tax cuts? those with the most property of course! defund the government, since those people don't need government service to begin with. and well, you can't go wrong by not taxing the rich!

No, they shouldn't be dismantled, they should merely be sold to a private company. Community colleges are great but they should charge a market price for the classes, when they don't, overcrowding and overuse of materials occurs. This is known as a shortage. Education is no different than any other good or service in the economy, the creation of these institutions distorts the market for them incredibly. However, your statement is illogical because it says: "all parents should be able to pay unsubsidized ivy league fee's." Nope, I never said that, your statement assumes that all private universities charge the same as an ivy league school, which they don't.

My sister went to a UC school here in California which my dad paid for, but when she transferred to New York University which is private, my dad ended up paying taxes here in California which go to the universities here and the high tuition of New York University. He got no tax breaks for the tuition he paid for NYU, so essentially he paid twice for my sister's education. This is a truly insidious system because it limits a student's choice on where to go to college because their parents often cannot afford private universities because their parents had to pay taxes for the public universities. If they were allowed to save that money they would have been able to send their kid anywhere they wanted, or at least have a larger choice. This goes for all institutions of public education. Under the current system in California if a student wishes to go to a private university or school their parents take on an enormous financial burden. How this can be called fair is beyond me.

How do you know that community colleges wouldn't exist without subsidies? Yes, some parts of the community colleges wouldn't but a lot of people who go to community college are people who didn't get accepted to a university out of high school and want another way in. I think these people would be more than willing to pay to go to a 2 year school which would eventually grant them access to a university. Education in many forms would still exist without subsidies because like I said before, education is a good in the economy just like anything else.



the question is, is your father one of the few rich people who actually pays enough taxes to have even started to actually pay for the true costs of of the uc system? otherwise your double taxation bit is rather pointless.
 
Originally posted by: chess9
Uh, here's a bulletin:

THE PROPERTY TAXES ON MY HOUSE WENT DOWN THIS YEAR, while my home's value increased about 8%.

This guy is a Libertarian, anti-government wacko who, if he succeeds, will destroy the public schools, police, and fire departments in this state. I'd rather spend my money on schools than prisons thank you.

Truly stupid move and I've had several people here try to get me to buy into this guy's nonsense. They have a petition up as well.

-Robert

Must be nice, Property taxes here are going up....
 
Originally posted by: Shad0hawK
Originally posted by: Spencer278
So to make up for the falling property tax we would raise the local sales tax. The problem with offseting the property tax with a sales tax is that property taxes are local but sales tax isn't. I can't just pick up my peace of property if I want to pay less taxes but I can easly drive across state lines to avoid sales tax. You think companys are not going to move if sales tax starts increasing or their property tax goes thro the roof when people no long have to pay tax.


i did not say "raise the sales tax" that would not be needed.

this is what i said "revenue would be increased by sales taxes, businesses would benefit through the increased revenue...on and on."

the more money is spent, the more tax money is collected...taxes do not have to be raised(or even if they are not much) when increased spending alone increases tax revenue.

i agree taxing corps gives them incentive to move...what was it you were wanting to with taxes again?

My local sales tax is at 0 percent so if the local goverment wants any money now that you killed of property taxes it is safe to assume that you would need to raise sales tax in order for the local goverment to get any money from sales tax. Unless of you want to elimenate local control over schools police and other serives provided by a town.
 
Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
Originally posted by: Dissipate
Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
Originally posted by: Dissipate
Originally posted by: dirtboy
Okay, so how will schools and things that get their monies from property tax get money under your plan??????

Having the state pay for your child's education is sloth. Unfortunately, public education is truly insidious because it makes parents who would send their kids to private schools pay twice for their kids' education.

Property taxes are levied because there is a physical location to collect and evasion is difficult. It is theft plain and simple.



thats right, and public universities? should be dismantled. all parents should be able to pay unsubsidized ivy league fee's. its a sign of a responsible parent. if you cant, well every society needs a lower class. and well community college? those simply shouldnt and can't exist without subsidies. too bad. survival of the fittest i say!


and well, the people who benifit the most from property tax cuts? those with the most property of course! defund the government, since those people don't need government service to begin with. and well, you can't go wrong by not taxing the rich!

No, they shouldn't be dismantled, they should merely be sold to a private company. Community colleges are great but they should charge a market price for the classes, when they don't, overcrowding and overuse of materials occurs. This is known as a shortage. Education is no different than any other good or service in the economy, the creation of these institutions distorts the market for them incredibly. However, your statement is illogical because it says: "all parents should be able to pay unsubsidized ivy league fee's." Nope, I never said that, your statement assumes that all private universities charge the same as an ivy league school, which they don't.

My sister went to a UC school here in California which my dad paid for, but when she transferred to New York University which is private, my dad ended up paying taxes here in California which go to the universities here and the high tuition of New York University. He got no tax breaks for the tuition he paid for NYU, so essentially he paid twice for my sister's education. This is a truly insidious system because it limits a student's choice on where to go to college because their parents often cannot afford private universities because their parents had to pay taxes for the public universities. If they were allowed to save that money they would have been able to send their kid anywhere they wanted, or at least have a larger choice. This goes for all institutions of public education. Under the current system in California if a student wishes to go to a private university or school their parents take on an enormous financial burden. How this can be called fair is beyond me.

How do you know that community colleges wouldn't exist without subsidies? Yes, some parts of the community colleges wouldn't but a lot of people who go to community college are people who didn't get accepted to a university out of high school and want another way in. I think these people would be more than willing to pay to go to a 2 year school which would eventually grant them access to a university. Education in many forms would still exist without subsidies because like I said before, education is a good in the economy just like anything else.



the question is, is your father one of the few rich people who actually pays enough taxes to have even started to actually pay for the true costs of of the uc system? otherwise your double taxation bit is rather pointless.

Well, my parent's combined income is approximately $200,000 a year and the house they live in is now worth somewhere around $1 million, so they pay property taxes and state income taxes. Whether or not this covers the true cost of the UC system for one student is something I cannot determine.

In any event you are confused. This is not a matter of double taxation, this is a matter of extreme taxation. The marginal tax rate for someone not attending a public university is sky high, just as the marginal tax rate on people receiving welfare is extremely high because the more they earn the less benefits they receive. In this case anyone who does not send their child to a public university has their benefits go to 0 but they are still paying into the system. Therefore, just as the welfare recipient has a disincentive to get a job, parents have a disincentive to send their child to a non-public university. This limits their choices and distorts the market for education.

I would like to reiterate that this applies not only to universities but to public education all the way down the line from high school to middle school and elementary school. The idea that everyone child should be put into the public education system in order to benefit parents who cannot afford education for their kids is absurd. There are many many middle class parents out there who could very well send their kids to private schools but they have an extreme disincentive to do so because the public education is "free" and since they pay into the system they would continue to pay in, receive no benefits then bear the cost of the private tuition. It doesn't really matter how much these parents pay into the system or whether or not the amount they pay in covers the cost of their child because once they pull their kid out their benefits go to 0 while the amount they pay in stays the same. So, this doesn't just apply to rich people, it is an insidious system imposed upon all parents and their children.

Edit: think of it this way. Humans make decisions based on how much they will have to give up in order to obtain the ends that they desire. In the case of public education parents give up "nothing" in order to obtain the end which they desire which is education for their children. However, giving up nothing is not really what they are doing because they are giving up choices. As soon as they make a choice to send their child to a private school the cost of what they give up in order to obtain the end of education increases enormously. Therefore, the means of providing education for their children becomes less relevent, as they could have the means to send their children to a private school but when faced with the choice of giving up a lot for giving up "nothing" parents will choose "nothing" even if the quality of education in the public schools is low. It is by this process of disincentive that the government has artificially reduced the demand for private education and through the laws of economics has forced many parents to send their children to public schools who otherwise would choose a higher quality institution.
 
so basically your saying the productive and vibrant society created by this subsidized public education benifits you in no way? do your parents make their money with employees/employers/coworkers/innovations/work of those who benifited from public education? or is it a all private thing?

i have my own private security. i believe my taxes going to police officers is excessive in this light.
 
Originally posted by: Spencer278

My local sales tax is at 0 percent so if the local goverment wants any money now that you killed of property taxes it is safe to assume that you would need to raise sales tax in order for the local goverment to get any money from sales tax. Unless of you want to elimenate local control over schools police and other serives provided by a town.


who said anything about killing property taxes? (changing yes...into something more like a sales tax than a property tax) ahhh, so we are going from state to local now?(looks like back and forth) (most) public schools are funded by the state. are you telling me new jersey has no sales tax and that the public schools are not funded in combination by state/federal funds?


as far as education goes i am in favor of vouchers. a state provided education will only teach you what the state wants you to know.

 
Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
i have my own private security. i believe my taxes going to police officers is excessive in this light.


i have my own private security too! i think everyone should!

😀

 
Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
so basically your saying the productive and vibrant society created by this subsidized public education benifits you in no way? do your parents make their money with employees/employers/coworkers/innovations/work of those who benifited from public education? or is it a all private thing?

i have my own private security. i believe my taxes going to police officers is excessive in this light.

It doesn't benefit anyone in any way. Government does not create wealth. It took me a long time to realize this and I would like to emphasize that I once thought as you do. However, the cold hard fact remains that no programs government institutes creates wealth. The private sector is always more efficient and can allocate resources much better. The government can transfer wealth as it has in the case of education, but this is not the same as creating wealth.

Its funny you should mention private security. The great Austrian economist Murray Rothbard actually prophesized the increased usage of private security firms in place of police and private arbitration services in place of public courts.

 
Originally posted by: Dissipate
Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
so basically your saying the productive and vibrant society created by this subsidized public education benifits you in no way? do your parents make their money with employees/employers/coworkers/innovations/work of those who benifited from public education? or is it a all private thing?

i have my own private security. i believe my taxes going to police officers is excessive in this light.

It doesn't benefit anyone in any way. Government does not create wealth. It took me a long time to realize this and I would like to emphasize that I once thought as you do. However, the cold hard fact remains that no programs government institutes creates wealth. The private sector is always more efficient and can allocate resources much better. The government can transfer wealth as it has in the case of education, but this is not the same as creating wealth.

Its funny you should mention private security. The great Austrian economist Murray Rothbard actually prophesized the increased usage of private security firms in place of police and private arbitration services in place of public courts.

so, the top economies in the world are based on private education right? if what you say is true, this must be the case, and it should be dramatic.

the fact is this, without government, there is no wealth. without a system of currency/regulation/protection of intellectual property/rull of law/national security/governed secure financial systems/secure markets for sale sale and purchase of items/infrastructure of roads/networks/education/ public health services/significant annual public investments in research that no venture capitalist would fund. you have no wealth. look in countries where government is weak, it is where there is no security, or simply no transparency and thus corruption. look at places like the middle east, where many governments don't really have taxes at all, are they juggernauts of science and commerse? would great projects like our space programs have been possible if just left to corporations? our nuclear weapons? integrated circuits, microchip processors and the human genome? all result of government research made available to the public.

you seem to believe your parents made their money in a vacumn. without workers/coworkers/bosses etc whatever that benifit from government or its educational systems in any way. that is rather doubtful. your parents live in a society, use and benifit from a workforce that is highly educated thanks to public education.

as for what you said of private security? absurd. case in point, the middle east, in afganistan/iraq, business owners have resorted to paying for private security. basically gunmen. and they desperately wait for the day when they no longer have to resort to such things. the desperation for such secuirty is a damning sign of lack of stability that prevents long term projects and investment. that you'd dream as something wonderful is rather disturbing.
 
Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
Originally posted by: Dissipate
Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
so basically your saying the productive and vibrant society created by this subsidized public education benifits you in no way? do your parents make their money with employees/employers/coworkers/innovations/work of those who benifited from public education? or is it a all private thing?

i have my own private security. i believe my taxes going to police officers is excessive in this light.

It doesn't benefit anyone in any way. Government does not create wealth. It took me a long time to realize this and I would like to emphasize that I once thought as you do. However, the cold hard fact remains that no programs government institutes creates wealth. The private sector is always more efficient and can allocate resources much better. The government can transfer wealth as it has in the case of education, but this is not the same as creating wealth.

Its funny you should mention private security. The great Austrian economist Murray Rothbard actually prophesized the increased usage of private security firms in place of police and private arbitration services in place of public courts.

so, the top economies in the world are based on private education right? if what you say is true, this must be the case, and it should be dramatic.

the fact is this, without government, there is no wealth. without a system of currency/regulation/protection of intellectual property/rull of law/national security/governed secure financial systems/secure markets for sale sale and purchase of items/infrastructure of roads/networks/education/ public health services/significant annual public investments in research that no venture capitalist would fund. you have no wealth. look in countries where government is weak, it is where there is no security, or simply no transparency and thus corruption. look at places like the middle east, where many governments don't really have taxes at all, are they juggernauts of science and commerse? would great projects like our space programs have been possible if just left to corporations? our nuclear weapons? integrated circuits, microchip processors and the human genome? all result of government research made available to the public.

you seem to believe your parents made their money in a vacumn. without workers/coworkers/bosses etc whatever that benifit from government or its educational systems in any way. that is rather doubtful. your parents live in a society, use and benifit from a workforce that is highly educated thanks to public education.

as for what you said of private security? absurd. case in point, the middle east, in afganistan/iraq, business owners have resorted to paying for private security. basically gunmen. and they desperately wait for the day when they no longer have to resort to such things. the desperation for such secuirty is a damning sign of lack of stability that prevents long term projects and investment. that you'd dream as something wonderful is rather disturbing.

The top economies could have private education, but they don't. They have all succumbed to public education, therefore there isn't really a comparison you could make at this point, but I assure you that if these countries swtiched to private education they would be better off.

You have a lot to learn. Keynesian economics has been debunked, its no longer a viable theory. Pump priming does not generate wealth, nor does government funding of research projects. Sure, these projects generate wealth in the sense that money has been transferred to them, just as much as I would become wealthy if the government wrote me a check. However, I know for a fact that the private sector would have made more efficient use of the money. In order to understand this you must understand a few things about human action and the Law of Diminishing Marginal Utility. Human action insures that resources will be used in a way that society sees as most efficient, when the government uses force to disrupt this flow, inefficiency inevitably occurs. This has to do with the fact that the government as an entity has a very distorted Law of Diminishing Marginal Utility governing it. Signals to government indicating what public goods to buy and when can be ignored, non-diminising or based on observations of bureaucrats. Possibly even all three at once. Individuals do not suffer from these problems, at least nearly as much as the government does and therefore, only individuals can create wealth. Everyone points to all these great things that government created such as the Internet and so on but few acknowledge the fact that if the private sector had received the funds, it would have made something even better guaranteed.

Protection of private property is about the only thing government can do to produce wealth, but even that service is being taken over by private security firms in the U.S. National defense falls under the category of private protection of property. The governments you mention do not protect private property, and therefore they live in chaos.

If you want to talk about transparency look at the Federal Reserve. There isn't much transparency there, is there? The Federal Reserve has secret meetings and dictates your financial future in those meetings. The lack of transparency you mention exists right here in the U.S., just in different forms. This has to be done away with as well if we are to live in a truly free society. However, I would also like to point out that the U.S. has been labeled the freest country among the western democracies, it levies the lowest taxes as a percent of GDP of the western democracies and has lower regulations. However, this is not enough, the U.S. must do away with the major government institutions that continue to hold the economy back.

No, I do not believe that my parents made their money in a vacuum and I would like to quote Murray Rothbard here.

2. First Implications of the Concept

The first truth to be discovered about human action is that it can be undertaken only by individual "actors". Only individuals have ends and can act to attain them. There are no such things as ends of or actions by "groups," "collectives," or "States," which do not take place as actions by various specific individuals. "Societies" or "groups" have no independent existence aside from the actions of their individual members. Thus, to say that "governments" act is merely a metaphor; actually, certain individuals are in a certain relationship with other individuals and act in a way that they and other individuals recognize as "governmental." 6 The metaphor must not be taken to mean that the collective institution itself has any reality apart from the acts of various individuals. Similarly, an individual may contract to act as an agent in representing another individual or on behalf of his family. Still, only individuals can desire and act. The existence of an institution such as government becomes meaningful only through influencing the actions of those individuals who are and those who are not considered as members. 7

6. To say that only individuals act is not to deny that they are influenced in their desires and actions by the acts of other individuals, who might be fellow members of various societies or groups. We do not all assume, as some critics of economics have charged, that individuals are "atoms" isolated from one another.

7. Cf. Hayek, Counter-Revolution of Science, p. 34. Also cf. Mises, Human Action p. 42.

Pay close attention to footnote 6. I invite you to read the rest of Rothbard's treatise Man, Economy and State The part I quoted is in Chatper 1: Fundamentals of Human Action.

As for your comments about my parents benefitting from people that are highly educated from public education, that is extremely laughable. The public education system is such a mess and such a joke I find it funny that anyone would claim someone is highly educated because of these institutions. This applies to high school and below, public universities are OK but I think this is mostly due to the fact that the lower achivieng kids who cause alot of the problems in the public schools got weeded out. This is not to say that public universities still shouldn't be privatized, they should still be privatized for the reasons I mentioned before about the artificial reduction of choices in education and the fact that public education like almost all government progams misallocates funds through the exercise of force.
 
Dissipate:

Though I agree that our public schools are in disarray, things could be much worse. Education is the best tool against crime, ignorance, poverty, and disease. For every grade my neighbor passes I benefit.

I worked on a prison reform project while in undergraduate school. 90% of the men in that prison hadn't graduated from high school. I was amazed at the fundamental level of their existence. Many were not much better than well trained dogs.

How low can our culture go? Will you want to live here when only 25% of students graduate from high school?

--Robert
 
Originally posted by: chess9
Dissipate:

Though I agree that our public schools are in disarray, things could be much worse. Education is the best tool against crime, ignorance, poverty, and disease. For every grade my neighbor passes I benefit.

I worked on a prison reform project while in undergraduate school. 90% of the men in that prison hadn't graduated from high school. I was amazed at the fundamental level of their existence. Many were not much better than well trained dogs.

How low can our culture go? Will you want to live here when only 25% of students graduate from high school?

--Robert

I agree that society is more productive and better off with educated individuals rather than uneducated, the reasons for this are obvious. However, the idea of mandatory education is ridiculous. Only individuals acting on their own behalf can decide how much education they need and where to be educated. To throw everyone into public education whether they want to be there or not and then lower the school's standards to meet the "needs" of those kids is a travesty for those who truly seek to learn.
 
Originally posted by: chess9
Dissipate:

Though I agree that our public schools are in disarray, things could be much worse. Education is the best tool against crime, ignorance, poverty, and disease. For every grade my neighbor passes I benefit.

I worked on a prison reform project while in undergraduate school. 90% of the men in that prison hadn't graduated from high school. I was amazed at the fundamental level of their existence. Many were not much better than well trained dogs.

How low can our culture go? Will you want to live here when only 25% of students graduate from high school?

--Robert

he ignores the fact that we live in a democracy, that there is more to creating a strong society then maximizing the ability to accumulate wealth.
 
Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
Originally posted by: chess9
Dissipate:

Though I agree that our public schools are in disarray, things could be much worse. Education is the best tool against crime, ignorance, poverty, and disease. For every grade my neighbor passes I benefit.

I worked on a prison reform project while in undergraduate school. 90% of the men in that prison hadn't graduated from high school. I was amazed at the fundamental level of their existence. Many were not much better than well trained dogs.

How low can our culture go? Will you want to live here when only 25% of students graduate from high school?

--Robert

he ignores the fact that we live in a democracy, that there is more to creating a strong society then maximizing the ability to accumulate wealth.

We don't live in a democracy. It is an llusion, we live in statism. In any event, the accumulation of wealth is through the voluntary exchanges and actions of individuals. To disrupt these exchanges is to violate freedom, which supposedly democracy is founded on. On this note I invite you to read Capitalism and Freedom by the great economist and Nobel prize winning Milton Friedman.

Edit: check out this study while you are at it: Economic Freedom of the World
 
You should add Texas to your list of states revolting against massively high property tax values.

A Houston radio station started a grassroots effort to slow down the skyrocketing property tax values. They started a PAC called C.L.O.U.T. The movement has come a long way and has spurred a special session in the Texas Legislature which will review the Governor's proposal to limit the annual property value increase to 3% annually. It is currently 30% over a 3 year period - more than 200% greater than the annual rate of inflation.
 
Originally posted by: CPA
You should add Texas to your list of states revolting against massively high property tax values.

A Houston radio station started a grassroots effort to slow down the skyrocketing property tax values. They started a PAC called C.L.O.U.T. The movement has come a long way and has spurred a special session in the Texas Legislature which will review the Governor's proposal to limit the annual property value increase to 3% annually. It is currently 30% over a 3 year period - more than 200% greater than the annual rate of inflation.

Added and linked.

3 States does a Majority not make yet but the ball is certainly rolling.

 
Originally posted by: chess9
Dissipate:

Did you just read Mill or get the full series of innoculations? 🙂

-Robert

I'm running the whole gamut. From Mises to Hayek. Right now I'm on Rothbard, in the middle of Economy, Man and State. A thousand pages takes awhile to read. 🙂

I wish I had time to read all of the books here.
 
OK, add Maine to the growing list and looks like soon South Carolina:

4-12-2004 Rising property taxes scare off homeowners

Andy Sanders would like to build a new home on his 2.6-acre lot in Orangeburg, S.C. But he's afraid he couldn't afford the taxes.

The property taxes on his small house have nearly tripled to $800 a year since he bought the home in 1997. The tax on a new house could exceed $3,000, and he fears it could rise to $4,000 or $5,000.

"I can afford the house payment, but I'm afraid of the taxes," says Sanders, 29, who works at his father's tire dealership. For now, his family will stay in its old home, appraised at less than $100,000.

Property taxes are resented even in states where they are relatively low. South Carolina's property taxes are below the national average. But when Sanders published a letter in his local newspaper, more than 200 people contacted him about his complaints about the tax.

"They wanted me to lead a crusade against property taxes, but I have a young child and a baby on the way, so I have no time," he says.

Carol Palesky, 64, a tax accountant from Topsham, Maine, did have the time. After two failed efforts, the grandmother who works out of her home gathered the 51,000 signatures to put an anti-property-tax measure on the ballot, probably in November.

Modeled after California's Proposition 13, it would roll back property taxes to 1% of a home's 1997 value. Today, the tax rate averages 1.5% of a home's value in 2002. The proposal would limit future increases to 2%.

Palesky is a citizen activist in the tradition of Howard Jarvis, the 76-year-old retiree who got Prop 13 on the ballot, and was a national symbol of the 1978 tax revolt.

The political establishment from both the Republican and Democratic parties has lined up against her.

Palesky says her campaign began seven years ago while waiting in a line to pay her taxes. Behind her, a burly man with calloused hands had tears in his eyes and a check in his hand.

"He told me, 'If I pay my taxes, I won't be able to buy medicine for my wife or put oil in my furnace,' " she recalls. That night, while brushing her teeth, she asked herself: Why doesn't somebody do something about this? "Looking at myself in the mirror, I knew I had to do something," she says.

It's unclear whether the revolt will spread from Maine. But Palesky says people from other states have called to ask about her campaign.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The political establishment from both the Republican and Democratic parties has lined up against her."

The Revolution is on. This time instead of England it is our very own Government, the "Blue" coats.

Just a matter of time when the first blood will be shed.
 
Back
Top