I absolutely loathe the manner in which our government, including the House, Senate and Presidency continues to spend our money in such a frivolous and reckless manner and essentially compromising free markets and capitalism in the process. But this…This makes me more upset then I have ever been – this kind of crap will put day-traders, swing-traders, and traders of every kind out of business, zap liquidity in the markets and essentially destroy everyone else’s investments in the process.

Never, and I mean never, have I ever seen a group of worthless people (code word for “politician of any type” in case you were wondering), so hell-bent on ruining our society and trying to destroy individualism all for the sake of state and collective ideas. I’ve tried to keep politics out of my blog, but at this point I could careless, I could careless who stops reading this blog as a result of my spewing, and I could careless who I offend or upset in the process – get over it!

If they choose to tax my trades and according to the article in the WSJ below, then they are looking at a 0.1 to 0.25% tax on EVERY TRADE! I would also be willing to believe that it will also be on trades that are opened AND trades that are closed. So if they tax .25% on a 10,000 transaction, you will be paying $50 just to get in and out of the trades – what a pile of crap! I’ll take my trades overseas to the European markets and Asian markets before I pay a single dime to Uncle Sam (outside of the ridiculous SEC fees of course) – and trust me I am as patriotic as it gets, but when Free Markets are attacked and compromised, don’t expect me to drink the Kool-Aide

In anycase, this was the article published on Saturday in the Wall Street Journal….

Democrats Weigh Tax On Financial Transactions

WASHINGTON — Taxing financial transactions on Wall Street is gathering support in high places.

With federal budget deficits soaring, policy makers and other advocates are eyeing the huge sums that could be raised as a way to cover the costs of new initiatives.

Labor unions, in particular the AFL-CIO, have proposed a financial-transactions tax as a way to defray costs of a health-care overhaul. Lawmakers have discussed a similar fee as a way to cover the cost of future financial oversight. Liberal advocates are pushing the tax to pay for new stimulus spending.

This week, the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute floated the idea of a national transaction tax that would raise $100 billion to $150 billion a year. The tax, at a rate of 0.1% to 0.25% of the value of the trade, would be levied on all financial transactions such as stock trades, but not on consumer transactions such as with credit cards.

The money would be used initially to pay for temporary aid to states, hiring incentives for public- and private-sector employers and school construction money.

“We are in a difficult time right now, so people are looking at every opportunity to gain some revenue to fund” new initiatives, said Rep. Stephen Lynch (D., Mass.), a member of the House Financial Services Committee. “Because I was one of the first to suggest using this to fund [new] regulatory infrastructure, folks have come to me and said, ‘That’s a good idea; I’ve got a better one: Why don’t we use it for stimulus or especially health care?'”

One Democratic aide said the idea is under consideration among House leadership, though the discussions are preliminary.

A spokeswoman for Republican House leader John Boehner of Ohio criticized the idea. “How is killing more American jobs by stifling capital investment, further eroding families’ savings and diverting much-needed investment out of the United States a good idea during a severe economic downturn?” said the spokeswoman, Antonia Ferrier.

Unnoticed by many, the concept already has found its way into federal law. At the urging of House Democratic leaders, last year’s $700 billion financial-bailout bill contains a provision requiring the president to submit legislation to “recoup” from the financial-services industry any eventual shortfall in the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP.

The provision, inserted during last-minute negotiations, was encouraged by moderate Democrats who worried that taxpayers would be left footing the bill if the government investment produced big losses.

Transactions taxes first were proposed in the 1970s for currency trading, to reduce volatility in exchange rates. The idea later was seized on as a way to reduce volatility in financial systems.

In an interview Friday, Rep. Barney Frank, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, said he supported the legislation’s idea of recouping future losses from the industry.

“I was one of the ones who suggested” the idea for the TARP provision, said the Massachusetts Democrat. He said he didn’t specifically propose a financial-transactions tax. The provision could be structured as either a tax or a fee, he said, and could be a one-time provision rather than a permanent tax.

That would make it less likely that parties to financial transactions would seek to escape the tax by moving activity to another country. He said imposing such a tax “country by country…would be a problem.”

Many economists have argued against a financial-transactions tax on policy grounds, saying it could have consequences for markets, in part by driving activity outside the U.S. Critics said it also would throw sand in the gears of capital markets.

Still, some appear to be changing their minds. “I’m not as hostile as I used to be,” said Len Burman, a Syracuse University professor and former head of the Tax Policy Center, a venture of the left-of-center Brookings Institution and Urban Institute. Curbing frequent trading might be a good idea, he said, though he is “skeptical this is the best way to do it.”

Mr. Frank said additional fees might be imposed on financial-industry participants such as payday lenders in order to pay for a consumer-protection agency.

Fees to pay for regulatory activities aren’t considered a tax under House rules. The new fees would be relatively minor, he said, adding that details haven’t been worked out. Similar fees already help pay for the operations of some agencies such as the Securities and Exchange Commission.

A broader question is whether levies on the financial industry might be used to help establish a rescue fund for future calamities.

In response to a question at a House hearing in September, White House economic adviser and former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker said it “might be interesting” if Congress ordered a study of the idea of a transactions tax. But he pointed to the problem of driving transactions to other countries. “That’s the No. 1 problem; you’ll have to get some consistency internationally,” he said.

Trade unions are backing the idea to reduce government deficits and pay for new jobs initiatives, among other purposes. Amid their urging, the Group of 20 industrial and developing nations recently pushed the International Monetary Fund to study the idea, which has drawn endorsements from some leaders in the U.K. and Germany.