patrick.net

Here's a thought. Read something else for a change & open your mind to more than one master. Your title is "...it's not what you're thinking."

I was thinking, "yet another quote from an opinion piece that adhomo thinks someone gives a shit about."

I was right.

Ellie is having a bad day folks. But even on a good day she thinks that her way of thinking is superior and anyone who happens to believe in ideals that are in conflict with her white bread "democratic liberal" philosophy,"wears a tinfoil hat" and listens to AM radio. Look at her most recent less than pleasant comments on this and other threads. Too bad she doesn't follow her own advice.elliemae says

Read something else for a change & open your mind

Hey, it's true. Twain was, if anything, a Georgist like me.

I'd like to think Georgism is necessary & sufficient to be a viable middle way between state socialism and state corporatism.

Von Mises, unfortunately, did not understand Georgism, or the Land Value Tax, all that well.

http://geolib.com/essays/sullivan.dan/royallib.html

Troy says

state socialism and state corporatism.

the difference between the two listed above is primarily semantics

I vote for none of the above. I'd prefer something more like a constitutional republic of sovereign states. That was a good idea. So good that the corporations were forced to influence "changes." They couldn't get to where they are now without a strong central government to make the laws uniformly in their favor throughout the states.

Corporations actually love big government, as long as they get a seat at the table. Funny how they always do.

I'd be happy if I could just make those big bold letters when I really wanted to say it with passion. I have no bold letter's in my arsonal!! drat.

If things drop off in Mar / Apr we will all be on the same side again. Just trying to survive. And this computer and web will be all gone, because EVERYTHING will change. In my most humble opinion.

Kevin says

If you think you’re so oppressed, why not move to another country? The very fact that you have that option should tell you how free you are.

This isn't completely true. US citizen who decides to "move somewhere else" and give up their citizenship is STILL LEGALLY OBLIGATED TO PAY TAXES to the US government for a number of years. This piece of the US tax code, specifically, is a case that we are not "free." In fact, it borders on the definition of slavery, or indentured servitude at a minimum.

CBOEtrader says

In fact, it borders on the definition of slavery, or indentured servitude at a minimum.

I think you need to do a little more research on slavery if you think that paying taxes in any way resembles it.

tatupu70 says

CBOEtrader says

In fact, it borders on the definition of slavery, or indentured servitude at a minimum.

I think you need to do a little more research on slavery if you think that paying taxes in any way resembles it.

Are you arguing semantics? Or are you arguing that our government forcing income tax upon non US citizens that live and work in a foreign country is acceptable to you?

Taxation without representation is tyranny. Would you rather I use that term to describe the situation? Also, slavery is defined as "forced labor". If you are being FORCED to give the fruits of your labor to a government, that can be considered slavery. i don't think anyone could argue that this is not indentured servitude.

Why don't you actually discuss the idea, rather than nitpick with the terms? I expect more out of you Tat.

I wonder... how many "non liberals" back then OPPOSED technological progress? Actually, back then, many of the same issues with technological progress were similar to today: "outsourcing" traditional forms of farming and manufacture to mass production factories that generated pollution and enriched new billionaires. Actually, Teddy Roosevelt was a "conservationalist."

CBOEtrader says

Are you arguing semantics? Or are you arguing that our government forcing income tax upon non US citizens that live and work in a foreign country is acceptable to you?

I was merely stating that there is a large difference between paying taxes and being a slave. I think that is a ridiculous analogy.

But, to the point. I did some quick research and found only a few instances where the US can tax former citizens that have given up their US citizenship. And those cases are only applicable if the person in question gives up his citizenship for the express purpose of avoiding paying taxes. So, basically it is trying to close a loophole that the very rich might use to avoid paying taxes on their investments...

I'm certainly not going to cry any tears for the billionaire tax cheats.... And I would hardly equate it to slavery or even tyranny.

THX1138 is leaving the city!

Actually, such "billionaires" aren't "tax cheats" even within the limits of US Law. According to wikipedia, all the USA could do to such people is bar them from re-entry into the states and this was rarely enforced. They weren't prosecuted as tax cheats, since, LEGALLY, they had no obligation to pay taxes by USA law and also by every other country (including socialist regimes).

Indeed, there's the ugly side of socialism rearing it's head: Thought crimes. A person INTENDING to avoid paying taxes, even legally, is a "cheat." Alert Central Control, THX1138 has left the city! THX1138 has left the city!

that number looks better on Milners Coupe

PolishKnight says

Actually, such “billionaires” aren’t “tax cheats” even within the limits of US Law. According to wikipedia, all the USA could do to such people is bar them from re-entry into the states and this was rarely enforced. They weren’t prosecuted as tax cheats, since, LEGALLY, they had no obligation to pay taxes by USA law and also by every other country (including socialist regimes).

This isn't a law in any event. It's a treaty with a foreign country that allows the US to tax former citizens in their country if they renounced their citizenship to avoid paying taxes. US laws are obviously moot to someone living in a foreign country...

Again--if you want to cry about the government closing a loophole allowing billionaires to avoid paying their fair share, then go right ahead. I'll save my outrage for more worthy causes...

tatupu70 says

I was merely stating that there is a large difference between paying taxes and being a slave. I think that is a ridiculous analogy.

It's not an analogy. It is the actual definition of the word. Though I will adit, slavery brings a violent image to mind. Thus, i also did some research and the better term would be unfree labor. This term includes violently enforced slavery, as well as debt slavery, etc.

"And those cases are only applicable if the person in question gives up his citizenship for the express purpose of avoiding paying taxes."

Noone expresses their intention as avoiding taxes when giving up US citizenship. This point is completely up to the discretion of the IRS to decide.

"So, basically it is trying to close a loophole that the very rich might use to avoid paying taxes on their investments…"

Uh, dude, if a US citizen decides he does not want to be a US citizen, that should be the end of it. Period. Billionaire or not.

The US is THE ONLY country that pulls crap like this via tax code. That shit worked when we were the only investment game in town. Now there are a lot of competitors...

Tatupu70 claims: "Again–if you want to cry about the government closing a loophole allowing billionaires to avoid paying their fair share, then go right ahead. I’ll save my outrage for more worthy causes.."

It's hardly a "loophole" for someone to renounce their citizenship FOR ANY REASON and move to another country. Once they are a citizen in another country then there is no "fair share."

I love the "crying" label being used again. Yeah, the big government under Obama is doing a real great job at making wall street "pay" their "fair share" and WE have a problem with it. Such sublime hypocrisy by that goes for the whole leftist agenda. If you REALLY targeted wealthy billionaires such as, er, George Soros or Steve Jobs and paid for all the goodies that way rather than middle class legal citizens, then you would have achieved your whole agenda a long time ago. Let me know when you get that kink worked out...

PolishKnight says

It’s hardly a “loophole” for someone to renounce their citizenship FOR ANY REASON and move to another country. Once they are a citizen in another country then there is no “fair share.”

You're certainly entitled to your opinion on this, but US treaties disagree with you.

What "treaty", specifically, are you referring to? According to wikipedia, as I stated above, the most the state department or the IRS can do is bar such a person from entry into the USA. This doesn't require a "treaty".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_nationality_law

Perhaps the "treaty" you're referring to is taxation reciprocation where _citizens_ are living abroad and required to pay taxes for their earnings. I clearly was not referring to that above.

The notion of someone being able to leave a country and move somewhere else, under new terms, is ironically what people have done throughout history but in reverse: People escaping places they felt didn't offer them freedom, personal or financial, to move to the USA.

I notice you didn't address my point above about how your agenda doesn't really go after "rich" people anyway and that it's just a cheap (pardon the pun) ruse.

PolishKnight says

What “treaty”, specifically, are you referring to? According to wikipedia, as I stated above, the most the state department or the IRS can do is bar such a person from entry into the USA. This doesn’t require a “treaty”.

In order for the US to tax a non-citizen living abroad, it obviously must be agreed upon by the ex-US citizen's new country. Once he is no longer a US citizen, US tax laws are moot. So the US and other countries agree to allow the IRS to continue to tax former US citizens that are trying to skirt their duty to pay taxes... They do this via treaty.

PolishKnight says

I notice you didn’t address my point above about how your agenda doesn’t really go after “rich” people anyway and that it’s just a cheap (pardon the pun) ruse.

I ignored it because it wasn't worth a response. Obama is clearly going after rich people--that's all I hear from the AM talk radio crowd. Redistributing the wealth, Commie, etc. He has proposed a somewhat strict bill to rein in Wall St. and the banks, but it remains to be seen if Senate has the guts to pass it. I doubt it. You guys need to make up your mind. Is Obama a Communist or is he just Bush lite? He can't really be both.

I'll ask again: WHAT TREATY?!?!

Your logic is specious (as usual) and contrary to the cite _I_ provided. Other countries do not agree to impose former US citizens trying to "skirt their duty" to pay taxes to the USA. This is why the state department reserved the right to bar them entry, but no such treaty is required for that. The USA reserves the right to bar ANY non-citizen entry for any reason.

Perhaps you ought to study up on immigration law.

Regarding Obama going after "the rich" and you hearing it from the "AM talk radio crowd." I call BS. Are you telling us you're now listening to right wing talk radio shows? :-) Oh, wait, you're just making that up. Actually, it's the RIGHT that's complaining that wall street is getting a blank check while the left on wall street are having a party on Obama's dime. An amazing role reversal, actually.

Yeah, he's going to get REAL strict. Hahahahha! He'll give them trillions and then "tax" some of it back. Oh, please, anything but that! Please don't give us trillions and take back billions! That would bankrupt them!

Regarding us "right wingers" needing to make up our mind. Indeed, Obama has failed spectacularly with his liberal agenda and now he's blowing more money in Afghanistan. Good going Obama! Thanks for Massachusettes!

PolishKnight says

I’ll ask again: WHAT TREATY?!?!

Here is one example:

http://www.ustreas.gov/offices/tax-policy/library/teswiss.pdf

PolishKnight says

Regarding Obama going after “the rich” and you hearing it from the “AM talk radio crowd.” I call BS. Are you telling us you’re now listening to right wing talk radio shows?

I don't have to--I can read it on Patrick.net. First off, I'll assume that you are referring to TARP when you speak of Wall St. getting a blank check. That was passed under a Republican administration, if you'll remember. So, the RIGHT needs to look in a mirror. Second, Wall St. is not exactly a liberal haven. It's probably about 10-1 in favor of Republicans. The Wall St. Journal leans just slightly to the right, wouldn't you say?

PolishKnight says

He’ll give them trillions and then “tax” some of it back.

The government didn't GIVE anything. It LOANED money to Wall St. and it is getting repaid. You're whole argument is funny though. It's not Democrats that are hindering tougher regulation and oversight of Wall St.--it's Republicans. Maybe you need to change parties!

Thank you. I concede that the treaty allows the US to retain it's "right" to tax it's "former citizens", however, it was quite telling how the US code (and therefore your cite below) actually defines a "tax evader": "the average annual net income tax of such an individual for the period of 5 taxable years before the date of the loss of status is greater than $100,000"

We should put this into context to your earlier statement: "So, basically it is trying to close a loophole that the very rich might use to avoid paying taxes on their investments…I’m certainly not going to cry any tears for the billionaire tax cheats…. And I would hardly equate it to slavery or even tyranny."

That puts the earner's tax bracket perhaps into $350K or so? Hardly a "billionaire". This reminds me of the AMT that is now catching metro area residents who are defined as "rich" and now getting soaked. Indeed, the ignorant masses you bash for daring not to "think" (agree with you) are rebelling against Obama because Obama is taxing health care plans (except for the unions) and draining medicaid/medicare (except for the cornhusker compromise), etc. It's a question I love to ask and you should consider as well: If socialism is so great because it's just going after the eeeevil billionaires, when why don't they just do that already and leave the middle class alone? They would have won ultra-super majorities a long time ago. Instead, they're now losing this one and fast!

Lessee if I can understand your reasoning about how you know what "talk radio" says: You don't actually listen to it, but you think that those who disagree with you are stupid and have their views dictated to them by talk radio, therefore you "know" what talk radio is probably telling them. Wow! You really are a legend in your own mind, to paraphrase Dirty Harry...

Next, where did you get the 10:1 ratio of W.S. leaning towards the Republicans? I WILL be impressed if you can produce THAT poll!

Here's some headlines. From the "conservative" LA Times:
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/mar/21/nation/na-wallstdems21
Democrats are darlings of Wall St.

Wall Street Journal
http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB117790069010286617-7bw4ru_pIMUkOIryd0rqqhTe_1U_20080429.html
WASHINGTON -- For the new Democratic bosses in the House, power has quickly translated into money, as many big companies have shifted more of their campaign contributions to the new congressional majority, and away from longtime Republican allies.

The top four House leaders -- Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California, Majority Whip Steny Hoyer of Maryland and their main lieutenants -- raised a combined $2.24 million in the first quarter of 2007, according to filings with the Federal Election Commission. That was more than three times as much as the $697,694 they raised in the first quarter of 2005, the comparable period in the previous two-year election cycle.

Yeah, SURE Obama HATES Wall Street. That's why he hangs out with them, hires lobbyists, and has the Fed slush trillions around. Because he HATES them. I wish he "hated" me in that way!

"That was passed under a Republican administration, if you’ll remember. "

Er, did Obama vote Yay or Nay for it?

A "yes" or "no" will do.

"It LOANED money to Wall St. and it is getting repaid. You’re whole argument is funny though. It’s not Democrats that are hindering tougher regulation and oversight of Wall St.–it’s Republicans."

Yeah, so Wall Street sold all those "toxic" assets to Obama, at MARKET rates, right? And Obama is buying off millions of loans, made at Barney Frank's AND Obama's request via Acorn to members of special interest groups and making a profit, right? Right?

Yeah, sure. Keep flying that, so to speak, and see if anyone salutes.

FYI: It was GW Bush who called for regulation of Fannie and Freddie back before the bubble burst.

Polish--

Wow--you're very good at putting words in my mouth and changing the subject.

PolishKnight says

If socialism is so great because it’s just going after the eeeevil billionaires, when why don’t they just do that already and leave the middle class alone? They would have won ultra-super majorities a long time ago. Instead, they’re now losing this one and fast!

Socialism is not great. Liberals do not want Socialism. I think Obama would love to go after the billionaires--unfortunately, the billionaires have bought too many Senators to let any meaningful legislation get passed.

re: Wall St.--I never said that they were stupid. Of course when they realize that Democrats will be in control, they start contributing to them. They can tell which way the wind is blowing. It doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of them punch the Republican ticket when they hit the voting booth.

Senator Obama voted yes on TARP along with 30 Republican Senators and 43 other Democratic Senators.

PolishKnight says

Yeah, so Wall Street sold all those “toxic” assets to Obama, at MARKET rates, right? And Obama is buying off millions of loans, made at Barney Frank’s AND Obama’s request via Acorn to members of special interest groups and making a profit, right? Right?

OK--now we're really getting into the AM radio talking points. #1--the toxic assets were bought by the FED, not the government. There's a difference there. #2--There were no loans made at Obama or Barney Franks request via Acorn. That is complete BS. Nice try.

PolishKnight says

FYI: It was GW Bush who called for regulation of Fannie and Freddie back before the bubble burst.

Well--he had a Republican House and Senate, so why didn't he do something about it?

"Well–he had a Republican House and Senate, so why didn’t he do something about it?"

Why can't Obama pass commie healthcare? He has a Democrat House and Senate, yes?

PolishKnight says

“Well–he had a Republican House and Senate, so why didn’t he do something about it?”
Why can’t Obama pass commie healthcare? He has a Democrat House and Senate, yes?

That was tongue-in-cheek.

CBOEtrader says

Kevin says

If you think you’re so oppressed, why not move to another country? The very fact that you have that option should tell you how free you are.

This isn’t completely true. US citizen who decides to “move somewhere else” and give up their citizenship is STILL LEGALLY OBLIGATED TO PAY TAXES to the US government for a number of years. This piece of the US tax code, specifically, is a case that we are not “free.” In fact, it borders on the definition of slavery, or indentured servitude at a minimum.

In the USA, the only thing certain is death and taxes. And whether you live here, die here, or live somewhere else, Uncle Sam wants your money.

tatupu70 says

Well–he had a Republican House and Senate, so why didn’t he do something about it?

Exactly. Both parties have let us down. Are people going to let them continue their mediocrity and corruption?

AdHominem says

tatupu70 says
Well–he had a Republican House and Senate, so why didn’t he do something about it?
Exactly. Both parties have let us down. Are people going to let them continue their mediocrity and corruption?

With the recent Supreme Court decision, I don't see how we will have any choice. There's too much money in politics already and it's only going to get worse from here on out. The two parties have such an enormous money advantage that it's next to impossible for a 3rd party candidate to have a shot.

Anyone here who honestly believes that you're going to somehow be forced to pay US taxes if you leave the country, renounce your citizenship (that is to say, become a citizen of another country), and stop working for US employers is insane. It's a lame ass excuse for not leaving a country that you seem to have such problems with, because you know damn well that if you went anywhere else you'd pay much higher taxes (unless you went somewhere like Dubai, of course....good luck with that!)

Kevin says

Anyone here who honestly believes that you’re going to somehow be forced to pay US taxes if you leave the country, renounce your citizenship (that is to say, become a citizen of another country), and stop working for US employers is insane. It’s a lame ass excuse for not leaving a country that you seem to have such problems with, because you know damn well that if you went anywhere else you’d pay much higher taxes (unless you went somewhere like Dubai, of course….good luck with that!)

Can I interest you in being in the pilot study to test this theory?

Kevin says

Anyone here who honestly believes that you’re going to somehow be forced to pay US taxes if you leave the country, renounce your citizenship (that is to say, become a citizen of another country), and stop working for US employers is insane. It’s a lame ass excuse for not leaving a country that you seem to have such problems with, because you know damn well that if you went anywhere else you’d pay much higher taxes (unless you went somewhere like Dubai, of course….good luck with that!)

Have you spoken to international tax lawyers about this? I have, and the situation isn't pretty. It is completely up to the discretion of the IRS to go after you or not. Of course if you are a salaried employee, they would never go after you. If however, you own investments that you have owned for years, like a business, the situation becomes much less certain.

I suggest you speak to your representation about how to do this properly before you just leap. I love the people in the US and do not want to leave. However, my conscience is just killing me to financially support our empire ambitions, and our freedom forced at gunpoint type of military operations. Not to mention the socialism for the rich nonsense that both the republicans and democrats engage in. I also have family overseas in europe and central america, so yeah, I've researched this.

It is nowhere near as easy as you make it out to be. At least, not for someone like me that owns investments.

And no, I would not be paying anywhere NEAR the amount of taxes in a foreign country, even if I chose to be a German EU citizen. The US is the ONLY country that taxes money made in foreign lands. Therefore any rich European that lives in his ten different exotic locales around the world, making money off of investments in all parts of the world (excluding his own country) pays NO income or capital gains taxes. The US is the largest tax shelter for investments IN THE WORLD, for these types. The US counterpart that does the same thing still owes the IRS his capital gains, even if that person never goes into the US and doesn't invest money in the US--which in itself is VERY hard to do.

CBOEtrader says

And no, I would not be paying anywhere NEAR the amount of taxes in a foreign country, even if I chose to be a German EU citizen. The US is the ONLY country that taxes money made in foreign lands. Therefore any rich European that lives in his ten different exotic locales around the world, making money off of investments in all parts of the world (excluding his own country) pays NO income or capital gains taxes. The US is the largest tax shelter for investments IN THE WORLD, for these types. The US counterpart that does the same thing still owes the IRS his capital gains, even if that person never goes into the US and doesn’t invest money in the US–which in itself is VERY hard to do.

As an expat I can tell you that while it is true the US is the only country to tax earned income, capital gains and unearned income is a very different matter. If your international tax lawyer is telling you different then change lawyers as quickly as possible. That is why so many countries are so intensely interested in the Swiss bank records being offered.

bob2356 says

CBOEtrader says

And no, I would not be paying anywhere NEAR the amount of taxes in a foreign country, even if I chose to be a German EU citizen. The US is the ONLY country that taxes money made in foreign lands. Therefore any rich European that lives in his ten different exotic locales around the world, making money off of investments in all parts of the world (excluding his own country) pays NO income or capital gains taxes. The US is the largest tax shelter for investments IN THE WORLD, for these types. The US counterpart that does the same thing still owes the IRS his capital gains, even if that person never goes into the US and doesn’t invest money in the US–which in itself is VERY hard to do.

As an expat I can tell you that while it is true the US is the only country to tax earned income, capital gains and unearned income is a very different matter. If your international tax lawyer is telling you different then change lawyers as quickly as possible. That is why so many countries are so intensely interested in the Swiss bank records being offered.

I am very much interested in what you are trying to say, but I am confused. I never base my opinion on one person's input. I have discussed this with actual rich european expats. These Europeans, living in central america, pay NO CAPITAL GAINS TAXES. My lawyers tell me this is exactly the way the system is designed. I am by no means trying to say I am an expert. Please explain what, exactly, I am misinformed about.

Do you have a law firm or lawyer that you suggest I speak with? I am a minimum of 5 years away from giving up my US citizenship, so I have some time to do extra research.

There is no system per say. It's very much country by country. You have to be extremely careful. If your lawyers (who I am sure are very good) are giving you a blanket statement that there will be no capital gains then I would challenge it. It totally depends on which countries you are talking about. Without knowing exactly where you will be a citizen and/or where you will live how can anyone possibly give you tax advice? Where you will going and where you intend to invest will be critical to making your decisions about investing. The rules are arcane, complex, and subject to the interpretive whims of petty bureaucrats worldwide.

Here is a link to the UK tax service about capital gains.
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/cgt/intro/basics.htm
Note in section 2 that it clearly says domestic or overseas capital gains are taxable. This is just an example I found with about 2 seconds work on google. Why do you think most governments in europe are salivating to get their hands on the accounts information stolen from a major swiss bank. If overseas investments weren't taxable why would they care?

Another example I can think of off the top of my head is here in NZ thousands of overseas and domestic investors bought real estate (and created a huge bubble that is going to pop) after being advised that there were no capital gains on RE in NZ. Not at all true. Capital gains on RE here are assessed based on INTENT of the purchase of property. Internal revenue determines the intent depending on how you use the property. You must have a valid written business plan in place that justifies the sale of the property to avoid capital gains. Ird is currently going after lots of really surprised people who bought and flipped.

I'm not trying to be a naysayer. It's great living around the world, I've lived in France, Canada, Costa Rica, and NZ and loved it. I am seriously considering Chile. You really can lower your tax burden a lot (not if you live in NZ which very much taxes overseas investments, you live here for lifestyle not financial reasons) in the right circumstances. But the downside of getting it wrong would be a heavy tax burden or even the loss of your new citizenship leaving you stateless. I have not given up my US citizenship yet. My tax burden is manageable so far mainly because I live in such a high tax country that I owe more here than the states, negating my US taxes (thanks to differences tax systems my tax burden is actually less than it would be in the states however). But if the spam really hits the fan tax wise in the states I will.

I wouldn't presume to recommend a law firm. I would strongly recommend talking to a accountant in your destination country for citizenship once you decide where that will be. I also would recommend a book called hide your a$$ets and disappear by edmund j pankau published by harper collins. It's about 10 years old so the information is out of date. It's also about totally disappearing, which isn't what you want to do. But it gives a very good overview of some of the ins and outs of the international scene.

Very good info Bob! Many thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts with me.

FYI: I am mostly considering a German citizenship, while living in Latin America for starters. Another possibility would be a Panamanian or UK citizenship.

I actually know of one guy, who dropped his US citizenship, picked up an Irish citizenship, but still lives and works in the US. He did this as a political protest, but also so that he can invest his fortunes into off-shore funds. A lot of offshore funds and investment companies DO NOT TAKE US capital. I have spoken with a few businessmen that run offshore investment companies. They tell some serious horror stories about the US government lying, cheating, stealing, spying, bullying, bribing and general gangster tactics as they attempt to control the entire world's financial systems. Ever wonder why foreigners have such a negative view of Americans? A lot of it is simply misplaced frustration over our morally corrupt government. Sigh.

Forget investment funds, many foreign banks have dropped american owned investment accounts. The ABN/AMRO, which is one of the largest banks in europe, closed out all american investment accounts last year. The IRS reporting requirements are just absurd. If some of the new proposed requirements go through this year it is very likely that no bank in the world will accept american citizens accounts of any kind, including checking and savings.

The horror stories about american government are legion everywhere in the world. Look up an account of Bush's trip to the apec conference in Australia a couple years ago, what a joke. Bush showed up with 6 jumbo jets, 50 vehicles, 700 people and preceded to pretty much shut down melbourne for 3 days. As the foreign press gleefully pointed out the PM of japan came in a small lear with 2 aides, the PM of NZ flew commercial. While traveling in africa Clinton's security detail stopped the president of a large african country's (I don't remember which one) limo in front of his own residence and made everyone get out while they patted down everyone including the president of the country and searched the vehicle. The reporting of this type of crap gets big play overseas but you never will see it in the domestic press.

Even worse is dealing with US Embassies. Embassies are the petty bureaucrats wet dream to start with, unlimited power with no oversight. US Embassies around the world take arrogance and petty harassment to a stratospheric level. Of course these courts of royalty are the only contract most foreigners have with the US government. How to make friends and influence people.

The story about the $200 MILLION bush entourage really bothered me.

After hearing stories like this, I don't know how anyone could support big government. Liberals and neocons alike, I am wagging my finger in your general direction.